Hugh Duffy
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event 2 (Review)
9/25/2020
Raphael, Rina. “‘Like Theranos, but It Works’–Health Startup Genalyte Proves Its Worth.” Fast Company, Fast Company, 12 June 2018, www.fastcompany.com/40574949/like-theranos-but-it-works-health-startup-genalyte-proves-its-worth.
One of the most outdated medical services offered today is blood work. For simple, reliable tests to be run on modern machines, an entire vial of blood is needed. For many years, scientists and engineers have been conceptualizing the next blood testing breakthrough of the twenty-first century with no success. The world of medical engineering is extremely competitive. Companies are more than willing to steal other’s research, and many corporations profit heavily on fraudulent claims. No one in the medical scene has been more of a fraud than Elizabeth Holmes. In 2003, Holmes, a Stamford dropout and daughter of once Enron VP Christian Holmes, founded her company Theranos, a privately owned healthcare industry focused on medical engineering. Her innovative ideas were so out of this world that her professors at Stamford called them “science fiction”. Holmes’ first product design for Theranos was a small patch to be placed on the arm, capable of detecting infection and releasing antibiotics. This idea was entirely science fiction, and according to the proper laws of physics, impossible. This failure didn’t stop Holmes. She went on to challenge the world of hematology, claiming that it was possible to fully analyze someone's blood with only one drop. No more large machines, no more large corporations like Quest monopolizing bloodwork. Her pitch was a small machine she called the “Edison”. The Edison was ideally capable of running a complete blood diagnostic in a fraction of the time, with a fraction of the blood. This idea was unheard of, and intrigued many Silicon Valley investors, and after she accumulated her roots within the industry, Holmes’ “fake it till’ you make it” scheme began. She convinced countless important investors to give her millions of dollars for the development of fictional technology. Her Edison machine defied the laws of thermodynamics and spatial physics, but as she maintained a thick iron curtain over her company, investors were never alerted of this fraudulent science. Eventually, Theranos stock amounted to nearly 9 billion dollars, Elizabeth began making deals with large pharmaceutical companies like Walgreens to implement the (inoperable) Edison within stores. After years of swindling investors, Holmes was eventually exposed for her lies, and Thernos stock dropped from billions of dollars, to nothing. Holmes was then charged with two counts of wire fraud, and is now awaiting her trial for up to twenty years in federal prison.
It's 2020 now, and while the technology didn’t exist five years ago, startup companies have begun clinging to Holmes’ initial idea. Apparently, the Edison isn’t entirely science fiction. Genalyte, a research institute in San Diego, has revived the idea of quick, portable blood testing. Gary Gunn, the CEO of Genalyte says, “We should be able to do all of these diagnostic tests in a couple of minutes.” Elizabeth Holms said the exact same thing, but this time the science is here. Instead of boasting about only having to withdraw one drop of blood, Genalyte takes roughly 10ml. This is the amount taken in standard blood tests, however patients are now able to receive their results within the same doctor’s visit. “Finally, Genalyte permits the medical community–and investors–to inspect its technology. It offers numerous white papers and has published clinical studies in peer-reviewed journals. Theranos, by contrast, treated its inner mechanisms as trade secrets.” (Rina 3) Genalyte is open with investors and the FDA regarding their technology, and because their machines have been reviewed by bioengineers across the Union, there is no reason to compare them to Theranos. This is a true innovation. Today, Genalyte is offering quick and easy access to COVID-19 tests. Eight percent of the human genome is made up of viral DNA. This DNA has been passed down by each generation. Genalyte’s new fast diagnostic technology can resolve the issue of viruses which can affect their host’s hereditary genes, and in the future viral DNA may be eliminated from our cells outside of the immune system. “Diagnostic testing composes just a small percentage–under 3%–of healthcare spending, yet it’s involved in nearly 70% of all clinical decisions.” (Rina 4) The importance of biotechnology and engineering cannot be overstated, it can drastically change the future of humanity.
This article was well written, and definitely compelled me as a reader. The connection between engineering and biology is emphasized constantly, and I think that is important. In modern society, especially in the era of COVID-19, quick and affordable testing is essential. What is being designed at Genalyte is the future, and humanity may actually see the day where diseases like cancer are detected immediately. There are only a few weaknesses of this article, however none of them are related to the author or her work. There is simply not enough research to achieve the same goal that Elizabeth Holmes had attempted, but that can all change in the future. Overall, I enjoyed this article greatly, and will certainly continue to observe Genalyte’s future advancements.
Part 1/2
ReplyDeleteRaphael, Rina. “‘Like Theranos, but It Works’–Health Startup Genalyte Proves Its Worth.” Fast Company, Fast Company, 12 June 2018, www.fastcompany.com/40574949/like-theranos-but-it-works-health-startup-genalyte-proves-its-worth.
Duffy, Hugh. “‘Like Theranos, but It Works'–Health Startup Genalyte Proves Its Worth’ - Review Hugh Duffy.” Blogspot.Com, 25 Sept. 2020, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/10/like-theranos-but-it-workshealth.html. Accessed 04 Oct. 2020.
In an argumentative and opinionated response to Rina Raphael’s article, “‘Like Theranos, but It Works’–Health Startup Genalyte Proves Its Worth,” Hugh manages to create an excellent review through his presentation of facts and analysis in a respectful manner. In his review, Hugh explains the background information on blood sampling and Elizabeth Holme’s creation of the “Edison,” which set the path for future works, as seen with Genalyte and their connections to Covid-19. Specifically, however, the introduction focuses on his and Rina Raphael’s opinions on Elizabeth Holmes, which I think is one of the strongest parts of the review. Hugh uses terms like “science fiction” to describe Holme’s fraudulent attempts of creating an infection detecting arm patch and the Edison, a machine claiming to use a drop of blood to create blood diagnostics in a fraction of the time previously used. Hugh says this is when “Holmes’ fake it till’ you make it scheme began.” With this downward spiral taking off, Holmes manipulated investors into giving millions of dollars into her company. Here, Hugh relies on numbers to tell the story of her fraudulence. He states that when Theranos, Holmes’ company, amounted “nearly 9 billion dollars, Elizabeth began making deals with large pharmaceutical companies like Walgreens to implement the (inoperable) Edison within stores.” While still throwing in argumentative terms like “inoperable,” Hugh solidifies the significance of Holmes’ crime through the use of numerical data. Conversely, this review was not meant to show staggering statistics, but rather to tell the story of an innovative failure and how scientists are now using its underlying principles and ideas to improve the product. The data presented on the value of the stocks act as a great segway to the new company Genalyte and their attempts to change the field of biomedical engineering. In a deep dive into this idea, Hugh relates the works of blood testing to our lives through the hot topic of Covid-19. Hugh says, “Today, Genalyte is offering quick and easy access to COVID-19 tests...Genalyte’s new fast diagnostic technology can resolve the issue of viruses which can affect their host’s hereditary genes, and in the future viral DNA may be eliminated from our cells outside of the immune system.” The impact that this machine could have on society is highlighted by ending his review with a connection to Covid-19. This was very well done by Hugh and adds depth to its potential implications.
Part 2/2
ReplyDeleteThough Hugh does mention the difference between the products created by Theranos and Genalyte, I would have liked for him to be more specific with his explanation of how this revolutionary machine works. This is a minor fix, however, I think it would have helped the reader to truly understand how the Genalyte product is going to be successful. Furthermore, I would have liked Hugh to put more focus on scholarly opinions of the work of Genalyte. He only touches upon the idea, however, I think it would have been a great addition to his review. Outside critiques can either make or break a product. From his research, Hugh seems to believe this machine will work, but I would have liked to know what other scientists think too.
Before reading this review, I did not know about Elizabeth Holmes and her failed attempt at innovation or the positive outcomes of her work by Genalyte. In addition to this, I am also very interested in learning about the creations within the medical field, which is why I chose this article. With this as a foundation of information, I plan on doing more research into the specifics of Genalytes’ new machine and how it actually works. If they are successful in cutting the time necessary to get the blood work results, there could be a huge increase in the medical efficiency of diagnosing patients, which will inevitably save lives.
Willy Swenson - Comment
ReplyDeleteRaphael, Rina. “‘Like Theranos, but It Works’–Health Startup Genalyte Proves Its Worth.” Fast Company, Fast Company, 12 June 2018, www.fastcompany.com/40574949/like-theranos-but-it-works-health-startup-genalyte-proves-its-worth.
Duffy, Hugh. “"Like Theranos, but It Works’–Health Startup Genalyte Proves Its Worth" - Review Hugh Duffy.” Blogspot.Com, 4 Oct. 2020, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/10/like-theranos-but-it-workshealth.html. Accessed 4 Oct. 2020.
In Hugh’s review of “Like Theranos, But it Works’ -- Health Startup Genalyte Proves Its Worth”, he does a great job of summarizing the article. He opens his article with a very interesting summary of the fraudulent company founded by Elizabeth Holmes, “Thernos”. Hugh’s summary of the company was a great hook to his article because it made me interested in where he was going with this idea. In his review, he writes, “Her Edison machine defied the laws of thermodynamics and spatial physics, but as she maintained a thick iron curtain over her company, investors were never alerted of this fraudulent science.” Hugh’s use of intriguing diction, such as “thick iron curtain”, helps draw the reader in. Secondly, he does a good job of connecting Elizabeth Holmes company “Thernos” to what we are able to accomplish. I thought it was cool that he made it sound impossible that this technology could ever exist, but scientists and researchers have found a way to legitimately construct “the edison”. Lastly, I thought it was a great choice to include the quote from the original article to support his point about the importance of biotechnology and engineering. The quote, “Diagnostic testing composes just a small percentage–under 3%–of healthcare spending, yet it’s involved in nearly 70% of all clinical decisions.” (Rina 4)”, provides great support for his overarching argument of the review: legitimate biotechnology is important for the future of humanity.
One area for improvement would have been more to focus on the current science behind the “legitimate” edison rather than story telling for the majority of your review. While I did think that explaining why Elizabeth Holmes and her company were fraudulent, it was a bit excessive and I thought you could have used some of those words to further explain why biotechnology is important and how it works. Another area of improvement was to use more factual information in your reviews. While there is not much studies and information out about this specific topic, it did sound like some of the claims in your reviews were not supported in science. It is always very important to support your claims with facts and research, especially in a scientific review. I suggest that claims like, “In modern society, especially in the era of COVID-19, quick and affordable testing is essential. What is being designed at Genalyte is the future, and humanity may actually see the day where diseases like cancer are detected immediately.”, be backed up a supporting fact or example.
I learned many things from Hugh’s review; some of them include: biotechnology companies can be fraudulent and technology progresses with time. It seems like there is a high risk for fraudulent activity in the biotechnology industry because much of the technology being funded are merely experiments and 1st of its kind. So, this could lead to many people lying about the technology and its real chance of actually coming to market. More importantly, I thought it was important to note that a technology that professors described as “science fiction” is not being actually researched and seems that the technology is possible. This is truly revolutionary to my own perspective of science because technology that I think is impossible today (like being able download your mind) will probably be possible in the future.
Olivia Cevasco - Comment on Hugh Duffy’s Current Event #2
ReplyDeleteRaphael, Rina. “‘Like Theranos, but It Works’–Health Startup Genalyte Proves Its Worth.” Fast Company, Fast Company, 12 June 2018, www.fastcompany.com/40574949/like-theranos-but-it-works-health-startup-genalyte-proves-its-worth.
Duffy, Hugh. “"Like Theranos, but It Works’–Health Startup Genalyte Proves Its Worth" - Review Hugh Duffy.” Blogspot.Com, 4 Oct. 2020, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/10/like-theranos-but-it-workshealth.html. Accessed 4 Oct. 2020.
Hugh’s review of “Like Theranos, But it Works’ -- Health Startup Genalyte Proves Its Worth” neatly summarizes the new bloodwork technology from the Genalyte group. Hugh’s opening sentence: “One of the most outdated medical services offered today is blood work” was particularly effective in captivating the reader since people agree with and can relate to that statement. Hugh goes on to describe the cut-throat medical engineering industry and prefaces this breakthrough technology with its fraudulent predecessor from the Theranos Company. Here, he describes Elizabeth Holmes’ vision to create bloodwork technology that requires only one drop of blood using the “Edison” device she invented, and he describes how it was considered “science fiction” and its data was falsified. Hugh described that “The Edison was ideally capable of running a complete blood diagnostic in a fraction of the time, with a fraction of the blood” to describe the importance--as well as the necessity--of this technology in an advancing world. I found this backstory on Holmes’ company interesting and relevant to this new method of bloodwork, especially considering that Hugh contrasted the secrecy of the Theranos company with the openness of the Genalyte group. To draw this comparison and emphasize that Genalyte’s technology and data is grounded in scientific evidence and not simply theory, Hugh quotes the main article, saying, “It offers numerous white papers and has published clinical studies in peer-reviewed journals. Theranos, by contrast, treated its inner mechanisms as trade secrets.” Finally, Hugh made a thoughtful application of this breakthrough to its affect on society and the future, stating that “What is being designed at Genalyte is the future, and humanity may actually see the day where diseases like cancer are detected immediately.” This enables the reader to fully understand the significance of this technology and its positive impact on their life.
To improve this article, Hugh could explain more of the statistics regarding the new bloodwork technology in lieu of focusing on the extensive backstory on Theranos. Since Hugh quoted the main article in stating that “numerous white papers and have published clinical studies in peer-reviewed journals,” I would encourage Hugh to include some facts from those studies in his current event to support his review. Second, the original article was published in June of 2018, so perhaps this technology is not “current’ anymore and has advanced since then. I would encourage Hugh to find a recent article about Genalyte to bolster the success of this technology and answer some of the questions the reader is left wondering: How has this technology improved since 2018? And has this method of blood testing become widespread?
Overall, I learned that it is vital to support new technologies with scientific evidence from third parties and peer journals instead of automatically believing what a manufacturer tells its consumers, such as in the Theranos scandal. This is relevant considering how fast our world is advancing and how much new technology we produce but might not have the evidence to support or determine the long-term effects of (such as the coronavirus vaccine). As consumers, we need to become aware of the reliability of new technology and suspicious of it until it is demonstrated to be effective.
Kelly Baclija
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
Current Event 2
Raphael, Rina. “‘Like Theranos, but It Works’–Health Startup Genalyte Proves Its Worth.” Fast Company, Fast Company, 12 June 2018, www.fastcompany.com/40574949/like-theranos-but-it-works-health-startup-genalyte-proves-its-worth.
Duffy, Hugh. "Like Theranos, but It Works'–Health Startup Genalyte Proves Its Worth" - Review Hugh Duffy, 2 Oct. 2020, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/10/like-theranos-but-it-workshealth.html.
After reading Hugh's review of “‘Like Theranos, but It Works’–Health Startup Genalyte Proves Its Worth”, I was left with the impression that it was a well written article. He provides a good introduction to the topic of the field of medical engineering, stating that it is "extremely competitive. Companies are more than willing to steal other’s research, and many corporations profit heavily on fraudulent claims" (Duffy 1). This allows the audience to gain some context before discussing Elizabeth Holmes and her company Theranos. Hugh gives a good overview of the entire fraudulent situation and uses this sharp contrast to explain Theranos' more lawful successor, Genalyte, quoting that it "permits the medical community–and investors–to inspect its technology. It offers numerous white papers and has published clinical studies in peer-reviewed journals" (Rina). I think that this was a good factor to include the article because it gives audience not only context for the current state of affairs, but also explains how Genalyte differs from Theranos for the better. Finally, Hugh discusses how the new company "is offering quick and easy access to COVID-19 tests" (Duffy 1). This ties the news article into the present, as much of the audience can relate with their experiences during the pandemic and thus become more captivated by the topic.
Although I believe Hugh's article was entirely well written, he focused more on the business aspects of the situation and did not explain much of how the biological details, which would have fixed the issue; for instance, he did not describe how the "Edison" is able to run blood diagnostic tests or why it goes against the laws of physics. Furthermore, throughout the review, Hugh had a bias against Holmes and her company, repeatedly stating that it was corrupt; "No one in the medical scene has been more of a fraud than Elizabeth Holmes" (Duffy 1). Although this may very well be a true depiction, I think the article should have been focused instead on the science behind medical engineering.
After reading Hugh's review, I have a new found understanding of the world of medical engineering, something I have never given thought to prior. Thus, this will change my perception of the way of view such procedures like blood work. To elaborate further, I had also never pondered the fact that a critical technique in medicine would be so outdated and scientists have yet to come across a breakthrough that would introduce a new era. Overall, I thought Hugh's article was well written and descriptive, though it could be improved upon by delving further into the biological aspects.
Katy McBride
ReplyDeleteOctober 4th, 2020
AP Biology
Current Event 2 Comment Review
Link to Original Article: https://www.fastcompany.com/40574949/like-theranos-but-it-works-health-startup-genalyte-proves-its-worth
Link to Current Event Review: https://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/10/like-theranos-but-it-workshealth.html
In his review of the Fast Company article “‘Like Theranos, but it works’-health startup Genalyte proves its worth,” Hugh Duffy does an excellent job of summarizing the contents of the article while also giving a realistic and educated critique. Even after reading the original article, Hugh’s review highlights the key components of the article. For example, I thought Hugh did a great job of introducing the article, including the intriguing and somewhat scandalous example of Elizabeth Holmes and her fraudulent actions. It was an exciting start to the article and definitely made me want to read more. I also thought that Hugh did a great job of transitioning the article from his discussion of Elizabeth Holmes and the dark shadow that she cast upon the bioengineering industry to Genalyte and how they are making exciting advances in the same field in which Elizabeth Holmes “faked it till she made it”. It was a sharp contrast but also flowed very well and made the review seem very fluid. Lastly, I thought that Hugh did a great job discussing how Genalyte’s work has advanced the bioengineering field, but especially how he connected it to the global pandemic currently overtaking every aspect of our daily lives (Rina). It was refreshing to read about how an up and coming business is making exciting advances in a field that will contribute to the overall wellbeing of the world’s population, and I think that Hugh effectively communicated that to his audience.
If I had to critique one aspect of Hugh’s review, it would be the critique that he wrote on the article itself. Although I agree with all of the points that he brought up in his critique, I think that he could have expanded upon the points that he made. I think that if he had provided ways in which the author could have improved upon the points that he took issue with, his review would have been more impactful. Another aspect of the article that I think could have been somewhat stronger is the part in which Hugh described the importance of the connection between biology and engineering (Duffy). I definitely agree with the idea that this connection is important, however I wish Hugh had expanded more upon it.
One part of the article that especially resonated with me was the part where Hugh described human genomes and how such small percentages can make such a drastic difference. This is a theme that can be applied to many other fields than biology and it definitely made an impact that I will refer back to after reading this article.