Elizabeth Holmes Through the Director’s Lens
Kira Peikoff was the editor-in-chief of Leaps.org from 2017 to 2021. As a journalist, her work has appeared in The New York Times, Newsweek, Nautilus, Popular Mechanics, The New York Academy of Sciences, and other outlets. She is also the author of four suspense novels that explore controversial issues arising from scientific innovation: Living Proof, No Time to Die, Die Again Tomorrow, and Mother Knows Best. Peikoff holds a B.A. in Journalism from New York University and an M.S. in Bioethics from Columbia University. She lives in New Jersey with her husband and two young sons. Follow her on Twitter @KiraPeikoff.
Elizabeth Holmes.
"The Inventor," a chronicle of Theranos's storied downfall, premiered recently on HBO. Leapsmag reached out to director Alex Gibney, whom The New York Times has called "one of America's most successful and prolific documentary filmmakers," for his perspective on Elizabeth Holmes and the world she inhabited.
Do you think Elizabeth Holmes was a charismatic sociopath from the start — or is she someone who had good intentions, over-promised, and began the lies to keep her business afloat, a "fake it till you make it" entrepreneur like Thomas Edison?
I'm not qualified to say if EH was or is a sociopath. I don't think she started Theranos as a scam whose only purpose was to make money. If she had done so, she surely would have taken more money for herself along the way. I do think that she had good intentions and that she, as you say, "began the lies to keep her business afloat." ([Reporter John] Carreyrou's book points out that those lies began early.) I think that the Edison comparison is instructive for a lot of reasons.
First, Edison was the original "fake-it-till-you-make-it" entrepreneur. That puts this kind of behavior in the mainstream of American business. By saying that, I am NOT endorsing the ethic, just the opposite. As one Enron executive mused about the mendacity there, "Was it fraud or was it bad marketing?" That gives you a sense of how baked-in the "fake it" sensibility is.
"Having a thirst for fame and a noble cause enabled her to think it was OK to lie in service of those goals."
I think EH shares one other thing with Edison, which is a huge ego coupled with a talent for storytelling as long as she is the heroic, larger-than-life main character. It's interesting that EH calls her initial device "Edison." Edison was the world's most famous "inventor," both because of the devices that came out of his shop and and for his ability for "self-invention." As Randall Stross notes in "The Wizard of Menlo Park," he was the first celebrity businessman. In addition to her "good intentions," EH was certainly motivated by fame and glory and many of her lies were in service to those goals.
Having a thirst for fame and a noble cause enabled her to think it was OK to lie in service of those goals. That doesn't excuse the lies. But those noble goals may have allowed EH to excuse them for herself or, more perniciously, to make believe that they weren't lies at all. This is where we get into scary psychological territory.
But rather than thinking of it as freakish, I think it's more productive to think of it as an exaggeration of the way we all lie to others and to ourselves. That's the point of including the Dan Ariely experiment with the dice. In that experiment, most of the subjects cheated more when they thought they were doing it for a good cause. Even more disturbing, that "good cause" allowed them to lie much more effectively because they had come to believe they weren't doing anything wrong. As it turns out, economics isn't a rational practice; it's the practice of rationalizing.
Where EH and Edison differ is that Edison had a firm grip on reality. He knew he could find a way to make the incandescent lightbulb work. There is no evidence that EH was close to making her "Edison" work. But rather than face reality (and possibly adjust her goals) she pretended that her dream was real. That kind of "over-promising" or "bold vision" is one thing when you are making a prototype in the lab. It's a far more serious matter when you are using a deeply flawed system on real patients. EH can tell herself that she had to do that (Walgreens was ready to walk away if she hadn't "gone live") or else Theranos would have run out of money.
But look at the calculation she made: she thought it was worth putting lives at risk in order to make her dream come true. Now we're getting into the realm of the sociopath. But my experience leads me to believe that -- as in the case of the Milgram experiment -- most people don't do terrible things right away, they come to crimes gradually as they become more comfortable with bigger and bigger rationalizations. At Theranos, the more valuable the company became, the bigger grew the lies.
The two whistleblowers come across as courageous heroes, going up against the powerful and intimidating company. The contrast between their youth and lack of power and the old elite backers of Theronos is staggering, and yet justice triumphed. Were the whistleblowers hesitant or afraid to appear in the film, or were they eager to share their stories?
By the time I got to them, they were willing and eager to tell their stories, once I convinced them that I would honor their testimony. In the case of Erika and Tyler, they were nudged to participate by John Carreyrou, in whom they had enormous trust.
"It's simply crazy that no one demanded to see an objective demonstration of the magic box."
Why do you think so many elite veterans of politics and venture capitalism succumbed to Holmes' narrative in the first place, without checking into the details of its technology or financials?
The reasons are all in the film. First, Channing Robertson and many of the old men on her board were clearly charmed by her and maybe attracted to her. They may have rationalized their attraction by convincing themselves it was for a good cause! Second, as Dan Ariely tells us, we all respond to stories -- more than graphs and data -- because they stir us emotionally. EH was a great storyteller. Third, the story of her as a female inventor and entrepreneur in male-dominated Silicon Valley is a tale that they wanted to invest in.
There may have been other factors. EH was very clever about the way she put together an ensemble of credibility. How could Channing Robertson, George Shultz, Henry Kissinger and Jim Mattis all be wrong? And when Walgreens put the Wellness Centers in stores, investors like Rupert Murdoch assumed that Walgreens must have done its due diligence. But they hadn't!
It's simply crazy that no one demanded to see an objective demonstration of the magic box. But that blind faith, as it turns out, is more a part of capitalism than we have been taught.
Do you think that Roger Parloff deserves any blame for the glowing Fortune story on Theranos, since he appears in the film to blame himself? Or was he just one more victim of Theranos's fraud?
He put her on the cover of Fortune so he deserves some blame for the fraud. He still blames himself. That willingness to hold himself to account shows how seriously he takes the job of a journalist. Unlike Elizabeth, Roger has the honesty and moral integrity to admit that he made a mistake. He owned up to it and published a mea culpa. That said, Roger was also a victim because Elizabeth lied to him.
Do you think investors in Silicon Valley, with their FOMO attitudes and deep pockets, are vulnerable to making the same mistake again with a shiny new startup, or has this saga been a sober reminder to do their due diligence first?
Many of the mistakes made with Theranos were the same mistakes made with Enron. We must learn to recognize that we are, by nature, trusting souls. Knowing that should lead us to a guiding slogan: "trust but verify."
The irony of Holmes dancing to "I Can't Touch This" is almost too perfect. How did you find that footage?
It was leaked to us.
"Elizabeth Holmes is now famous for her fraud. Who better to host the re-boot of 'The Apprentice.'"
Holmes is facing up to 20 years in prison for federal fraud charges, but Vanity Fair recently reported that she is seeking redemption, taking meetings with filmmakers for a possible documentary to share her "real" story. What do you think will become of Holmes in the long run?
It's usually a mistake to handicap a trial. My guess is that she will be convicted and do some prison time. But maybe she can convince jurors -- the way she convinced journalists, her board, and her investors -- that, on account of her noble intentions, she deserves to be found not guilty. "Somewhere, over the rainbow…"
After the trial, and possibly prison, I'm sure that EH will use her supporters (like Tim Draper) to find a way to use the virtual currency of her celebrity to rebrand herself and launch something new. Fitzgerald famously said that "there are no second acts in American lives." That may be the stupidest thing he ever said.
Donald Trump failed at virtually every business he ever embarked on. But he became a celebrity for being a fake businessman and used that celebrity -- and phony expertise -- to become president of the United States. Elizabeth Holmes is now famous for her fraud. Who better to host the re-boot of "The Apprentice." And then?
"You Can't Touch This!"
Kira Peikoff was the editor-in-chief of Leaps.org from 2017 to 2021. As a journalist, her work has appeared in The New York Times, Newsweek, Nautilus, Popular Mechanics, The New York Academy of Sciences, and other outlets. She is also the author of four suspense novels that explore controversial issues arising from scientific innovation: Living Proof, No Time to Die, Die Again Tomorrow, and Mother Knows Best. Peikoff holds a B.A. in Journalism from New York University and an M.S. in Bioethics from Columbia University. She lives in New Jersey with her husband and two young sons. Follow her on Twitter @KiraPeikoff.
A couple holds up a picture of their ultrasound.
By now you have probably heard something about CRISPR, the simple and relatively inexpensive method of precisely editing the genomes of plants, animals, and humans.
The treatment of disease in fetuses, the liminal category of life between embryos and humans, poses the next frontier.
Through CRISPR and other methods of gene editing, scientists have produced crops to be more nutritious, better able to resist pests, and tolerate droughts; engineered animals ranging from fruit flies to monkeys to make them better suited for scientific study; and experimentally treated the HIV virus, Hepatitis B, and leukemia in human patients.
There are also currently FDA-approved trials to treat blindness, cancer, and sickle cell disease in humans using gene editing, and there is consensus that CRISPR's therapeutic applications will grow significantly in the coming years.
While the treatment of human disease through use of gene editing is not without its medical and ethical concerns, the avoidance of disease in embryos is far more fraught. Nonetheless, Nature reported in November that He Jiankui, a scientist in China, had edited twin embryos to disable a gene called CCR5 in hopes of avoiding transmission of HIV from their HIV-positive father.
Though there are questions about the effectiveness and necessity of this therapy, He reported that sequencing has proven his embryonic gene edits were successful and the twins were "born normal and healthy," although his claims have not been independently verified.
More recently, Denis Rebrikov, a Russian scientist, announced his plans to disable the same gene in embryos to be implanted in HIV-positive women later this year. Futuristic as it may seem, prenatal gene editing is already here.
The treatment of disease in fetuses, the liminal category of life between embryos and humans, poses the next frontier. Numerous conditions—some minor, some resulting in a lifetime of medical treatment, some incompatible with life outside of the womb—can be diagnosed through use of prenatal diagnostic testing. There is promising research suggesting doctors will soon be able to treat or mitigate at least some of them through use of fetal gene editing.
This research could soon present women carrying genetically anomalous fetuses a third option aside from termination or birthing a child who will likely face a challenging and uncertain medical future: Whether to undergo a fetal genetic intervention.
However, genetic intervention will open the door to a host of ethical considerations, particularly with respect to the relationship between pregnant women and prenatal genetic counselors. Current counselors theoretically provide objective information and answer questions rather than advise their pregnant client whether to continue with her pregnancy, despite the risks, or to have an abortion.
In practice, though, prenatal genetic counseling is most often directive, and the nature of the counseling pregnant women receive can depend on numerous factors, including their religious and cultural beliefs, their perceived ability to handle a complicated pregnancy and subsequent birth, and their financial status. Introducing the possibility of a fetal genetic intervention will exacerbate counselor reliance upon these considerations and in some cases lead to counseling that is even more directive.
Some women in the near future will face the choice of whether to abort, keep, or treat a genetically anomalous fetus.
Future counselors will have to figure out under what circumstances it is even appropriate to broach the subject. Should they only discuss therapies that are FDA-approved, or should they mention experimental treatments? What about interventions that are available in Europe or Asia, but banned in the United States? Or even in the best case of scenario of an FDA-approved treatment, should a counselor make reference to it if she knows for a fact that her client cannot possibly afford it?
Beyond the basic question of what information to share, counselors will have to confront the fact that the very notion of fixing or "editing" offspring will be repugnant to many women, and inherent in the suggestion is the stigmatization of individuals with disabilities. Prenatal genetic counselors will be on the forefront of debates surrounding which fetuses should remain as they are and which ones should be altered.
Despite these concerns, some women in the near future will face the choice of whether to abort, keep, or treat a genetically anomalous fetus in utero. Take, for example, a woman who learns during prenatal testing that her fetus has Angelman syndrome, a genetic disorder characterized by intellectual disability, speech impairment, loss of muscle control, epilepsy, and a small head. There is currently no human treatment for Angelman syndrome, which is caused by a loss of function in a single gene, UBE3A.
But scientists at the University of North Carolina have been able to treat Angelman syndrome in fetal mice by reactivating UBE3A through use of a single injection. The therapy has also proven effective in cultured human brain cells. This suggests that a woman might soon have to consider injecting her fetus's brain with a CRISPR concoction custom-designed to target UBE3A, rather than terminate her pregnancy or bring her fetus to term unaltered.
Assuming she receives the adequate information to make an informed choice, she too will face an ethical conundrum. There will be the inherent risks of injecting anything into a developing fetus's brain, including the possibility of infection, brain damage, and miscarriage. But there are also risks specific to gene editing, such as so-called off-target effects, the possibility of impacting genes other than the intended one. Such effects are highly unpredictable and can be difficult to detect. So too is it impossible to predict how altering UBE3A might lead to other genetic and epigenetic changes once the baby is born.
There are no easy answers to the many questions that will arise in this space.
A woman deciding how to act in this scenario must balance these risks against the potential benefits of the therapy, layered on top of her belief system, resources, and personal ethics. The calculus will be different for every woman, and even the same woman might change her mind from one pregnancy to the next based on the severity of the condition diagnosed and other available medical options.
Her genetic counselor, meanwhile, must be sensitive to all of these concerns in helping her make her decision, keeping up to date on the possible new treatments, and carefully choosing which information to disclose in striving to be neutral. There are no easy answers to the many questions that will arise in this space, but better to start thinking about them now, before it is too late.
Lab-grown insect meat could be the protein source of the future.
Agriculture in the 21st century is not as simple as it once was. With a population seven billion strong, a climate in crisis, and sustainability in farming practices on everyone's radar, figuring out how to feed the masses without destroying the Earth is a pressing concern.
Tufts scientists argue that insect cells may be better suited to lab-created meat protein than traditional farm animal cells.
In addition to low-emission cows and drone pollinators, there's a promising new solution on the table. How does "lab-grown insect meat" grab you?
Writing in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, researchers at Tufts University say insects that are fed plants and genetically modified for maximum growth, nutrition, and flavor could be the best, greenest alternative to our current livestock farming practices. This lab-grown protein source could produce high volume, nutritious food without the massive resources required for traditional animal agriculture.
"Due to the environmental, public health, and animal welfare concerns associated with our current livestock system, it is vital to develop more sustainable food production methods," says lead author Natalie Rubio. Could insect meat be the key?
Next Up
New sustainable food production includes what's called "cellular agriculture," an emerging industry and field of study in which meat and dairy are produced via cells in a lab instead of whole animals. So far, scientists have primarily focused on bovine, porcine, and avian cells to create this "cultured meat."
But the Tufts scientists argue that insect cells may be better suited to lab-created meat protein than traditional farm animal cells.
"Compared to cultured mammalian, avian, and other vertebrate cells, insect cell cultures require fewer resources and less energy-intensive environmental control, as they have lower glucose requirements and can thrive in a wider range of temperature, pH, oxygen, and osmolarity conditions," reports Rubio.
"Alterations necessary for large-scale production are also simpler to achieve with insect cells, which are currently used for biomanufacturing of insecticides, drugs, and vaccines," she adds.
They still have some details to hash out, however, including how to make cultured insect meat more like the steak and chicken we're all familiar with.
"Despite this immense potential, cultured insect meat isn't ready for consumption," says Rubio. "Research is ongoing to master two key processes: controlling development of insect cells into muscle and fat, and combining these in 3D cultures with a meat-like texture." They are currently experimenting with mushroom-derived fiber to tackle the latter.
People would still be able to eat meat—it would just come from a different source.
Open Questions
As the report points out, one thing that makes cellular agriculture an attractive alternative to high-density animal farming is that it doesn't require consumers to change their behaviors. People would still be able to eat meat—it would just come from a different source.
But the big question remains: How will lab-grown insect meat taste? Will the buggers really taste as good as burgers?
And, of course, there's the "ew" factor. Meat alternatives have proven to work for some people—Tofurky is still in business, after all—but it may be a hard sell to get the masses to jump on board with eating bugs. Consuming creepy crawlies sounds simply unpalatable to many, and the term "lab-grown, cellular insect meat" doesn't help much. Perhaps an entirely new nomenclature is in order.
Another question is whether or not folks will trust such scientifically-created food. People already use the term "frankenfood" to refer to genetic modification -- even though the vast majority of the corn and soybeans planted in the U.S. today are genetically engineered, and other major crops with GM varieties include potatoes, apples, squash, and papayas. Still, combining GM technology with eating insects may be a hard sell.
However, we're all going to have to get used to trying new things if we want to leave a habitable home for our children. If a lab-grown bug burger can save the planet, maybe it's worth a shot.