Series Review — The Dropout (2022)
Thoughts on recently reviewing the drama mini-series and delving into the treacherous tale of Theranos.
It just happened that a couple of days ago, I read an article on “How to be a successful college dropout” on research.com. Before the reader gets the wrong idea on whether yours truly is contemplating doing the same, one would like to dispel such thoughts straightaway. But it’s interesting how being a dropout is the new definition of being a successful person in the current era. Last week, while scrolling through my LinkedIn feed, I stumbled upon a new content trend discussing the impact of dropouts in the global economy over the past 12 months. In the age of content rush, everyone’s writing about how these silicon valley tech-tycoons are usually the dropouts and serve as an inspiration to those who wish to tread similar paths. But before getting into the depth, one would want to put more context into it. Who are these dropouts? Why do they drop out? What are they doing that’s causing such a buzz? Dropouts are quintessential geniuses, future leaders, tech tyrants, the unicorns who left their studies in the middle of their university programs. These successful dropouts are more often than not from the ivy-leagues of the world. Stanford, Harvard, Columbia…you name it, you have it. And why would one want to drop from such prestigious leagues?
Well, imagine this. You are surrounded by the best minds from around the world, an abundance of intellectual & social capital, and most importantly, you have an idea that can potentially change the world. And to change the world, you don’t need a college degree, even from an ivy league college; you just need the right set of people and that one idea. Jack Dorsey, Bill Gates, Larry Page, Amancio Ortego, Michael Dell, and the list goes on. All drop-outs. And they’ve created their own space, pulled off the unthinkable, established their mark, and championed innovation & tech in their own rights. Their valuations are in billions of dollars, and their influence spreads right across the lengths and breadths of the modern globe. In short, they are the real deal.
But is it true? As much as one would like to argue and be the devil’s advocate here, it simply isn’t true. Not all dropouts are successful. Not all dropouts are innovators. Not all dropouts are the change-makers the world seeks. One of them happens to be Ms. Elizabeth Holmes, founder & former CEO of Theranos and now a convict coming out of silicon valley. Ms. Holmes was once celebrated as one of the world’s youngest self-made female billionaires by Forbes magazine in 2014. An astute new-gen leader who wanted to disrupt the trillion-dollar worth of the medicare industry by bringing her innovation (or was it?) to the world. This review attempts to look at her and Theranos’ peculiar short-lived journey through the lens of business, government, and society. The Dropout is an 8-part series following a wide-eyed teenage Holmes at Stanford and her quest to create history using a single drop of blood.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, medical advancements have shown tremendous improvements and taken significant strides for the betterment of humankind in general. But more often than not, it’s either the accidental stumbles that have led to monumental discoveries or the cost that society has endured or still endures to reach that colossal discovery. The origin of Theranos was no different either. Theranos promised the world a cutting-edge technology that can diagnose any disease by running thousands of tests by extracting just a single drop (later vial) of blood. Doesn’t it sound revolutionary? Sure it does, when one thinks about how many people endure the prodding and pricking of needles throughout their lives to receive one result that impacts so much on their lives, income and livelihood altogether. Think about the small portable device that Theranos promised could become accessible to the most vulnerable people and most remote areas of the world. The benefits it could’ve imparted to the generations to come. Ms. Holmes’s idea and vision challenged so much more, attempting to break the shackles of the existing medical diagnostics infrastructure (expensive, no less) and other facilities where society and the world still seem to be enveloped. But if the genesis of Theranos was composed of seething lies, unethical practices, and committed statutory frauderies, the promises and the potential never held any value. Theranos made its humble beginnings in 2004 when Holmes dropped out of Stanford and raised around $6.9 million (including her university tuition). It’s exciting and commendable to note how a 19-year-old can accumulate all that strength to launch a startup in a competitive capitalist market like the United States.
The timeline of Theranos is nothing but tumultuous, having seen both the best and worst of its time. How it raised funds from various well-reputed investors, venture capitalists, and stakeholders (Rupert Murdoch, Larry Ellison, Tim Draper, Walgreens, etc.) is both admirable and amusingly worrisome. Admirable because these names are no ordinary figures but big sharks of Silicon Valley that Holmes managed to rope in. Amusingly worrisome because these names backed an organization whose prototype (forget the product) never delivered the results it claimed to change the world. An argument can crop up here on the ethical behavior of the stakeholders and partners involved in Theranos for a prolonged time, knowing the implications on the overall society and economy of their fraudulent activities. One side can put forth that it is the investors’ and stakeholders’ responsibility to support the organization since they believed that the product Theranos promised to deliver had the potential to change medicare history altogether. And thus, it justified the risk of putting investments, capital, and resources since it can make a lot of commercial revenue for all involved in the anticipated future. On the other side to it, the product that Theranos tried to put out cannot be just classified as a “commercial good,” but it’s a “merit good” and, if utilized by public healthcare institutions, can come under as a “public merit good.” And thus, the onus, as well as the accountability of all the people involved with Theranos, comes into question since this very product impacted countless lives directly or indirectly.
Interestingly, it’s not just the stakeholders, partners, and associates who fell into Theranos’ extraordinary deceiving pitch. Theranos also managed to gradually lobby federal bureaucrats and several senators across the country. While Theranos championed the approvals from renowned regulatory bodies, filing patents for home-grown innovation and winning support from prominent political and industry leaders, simultaneously, they managed to suppress the voices of critics and media alike who tried to uncover their malpractices. It’s not like Theranos is the only business that utilizes intimidation tools such as controlling media through PR, filing exorbitant suits, or burdening the workforce with several litigations such as NDAs to suppress shortcomings and criticisms. All the big daddies of silicon valley do it and are pretty proficient in it. The point here is that the judiciary and legal structure give provisions to people and businesses alike, which can exploit in extremes to protect their self-interests at the cost of overall social benefits. Is it justified? There will be no easy answers to this. However, when such tools are exercised as an act to suppress the truth under the garb of being a pioneering change-maker, the ethics and concept of social responsibility go for a toss. When statutory and regulatory bodies turn a blind eye to extreme irregularities and life-threatening aberrations (Theranos risked countless lives by implicating false reports) that directly impact society, the credibility shatters. When government officials who have served in prominent positions provide a semblance to such an uncertain venture, the role of government statesmanship comes into jeopardy.
Even if we sideline the accountability of all the people, prominent politicians, business luminaries, scientists, regulatory authorities, government, etc. for once, the fact that startups like Theranos can deceive so many players at once makes you doubt whether the flexibility provided to tech startups and businesses, in general, is inflated. That is a discussion for another day. Having said that, there are checks and balances which eventually rise to a free and democratic state. Stable and vibrant democracies ensure the right to seek justice and the right to hold people in power accountable. By 2017, Ms. Holmes and Theranos were subjugated to trial on accounts of intellectual theft and malpractices, among other accusations. They were found guilty of most of the charges by the federal court. If not for the efforts of courageous whistleblowers, interest groups, and journalist(s) supported by their organization(s), it would have been impossible to put pressure on Theranos in the interest of thousands of lives put at risk. There was a scene in the series which has a lasting impression on the viewer. The scene involves the leading investigative journalist exclaiming his relief when regulatory body CMS (Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services) places a two-year ban on Elizabeth Holmes & Theranos, thanks to the often-notorious phenomenon of red-tapism across the globe. It just underlines that institutions and procedures can bring accountability to those who exploit endlessly, maximizing their self-wealth. Irrespective of whether the systems (red-tapism, in this case) are relevant or obsolete, the adherence of businesses towards the laws of the land, federal institutions, and the government couldn’t have been more emphasized had it not intervened before tragedy struck.
To bring this review to its conclusion, one has to acknowledge that Ms. Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos had a great idea. Frankly, the idea is still great. There is still a possibility to see the potential of diagnosing so much & more with a single drop of blood. As tainted as her reputation may be today, no one can take away from the fact that Theranos had a one-of-a-kind idea that had the potential to revolutionize science and the world altogether. What is impossible today, maybe possible tomorrow. As a young woman, she did carve her own space successfully as one of the influential modern entrepreneurs. Indeed, she could’ve inspired a young crop of women to create their niche in the domain of STEM. But as the series points out, it’s not who you become to lead the change but what you create to lead the change. And what Theranos created was a web of lies that ultimately met its crashing fate. My deep thoughts are NOT on what future lies ahead for Ms. Holmes and Theranos altogether. The trials are already in place, and justice should certainly prevail toward the end. My thoughts are to those budding women entrepreneurs who are now subjugated, stereotyped, and rejected by investors and regulators alike, getting their credibilities and ideas mapped against those of Ms. Elizabeth Holmes. It is a wrong precedent now set for those in the society that, on the one hand, moves towards achieving equality in terms of opportunities but, on the other hand, is birthing yet another parameter of discrimination based on gender. The case of Theranos is a story of what could’ve been done right but eventually turned out to be what could’ve gone wrong. Both notions are substantiated by the roles of Business, Government, and Society in general. This extraordinary case does bring out the fault lines within the ecosystem of those mentioned above, but somewhere, it also ratifies its presence on why it is needed.
The series is a riveting watch, though it’s an 8-hour-long investment. The show’s tone is not monotonous or narrowly streamlined but intriguing, compelling, and fascinating. It makes you empathize with Ms. Holmes & her actions and yet subconsciously nudges your conscience through the fundamentals of uprooting ethics. It ascertains the belief to achieve the ambitions and the ladder one needs to climb to reach the desired outcome. But then again, it makes you question the systems and institutions that promulgate unfair practices. The screenplay and cinematography beautifully capture the people around the startup ecosystem, the toxic culture, and the fallacies that come along with it. However, the script is often guilty of focusing more on the central character and her journey to escape her shell to dominate the world. And there lies the drawback: It does not emphasize much on those who were at the receiving end of this potentially disastrous experiment. I would still say that there are some crude lessons for every facet that can be drawn from this saga. As I look forward to listening to the original podcast on which the show was conceived, I’d strongly advise the reader to give this binge-worthy miniseries a shot. The drama mini-series is available on Disney+ Hotstar (India).
Views are personal.
