Is There Any Truth or Proof to Bionic Reading’s Claims?
This will be difficult reading for the eye-catching startup.
Twitter recently exploded with a viral story about the Bionic Reading® app. I was late to the party; this eye-catching startup has already got 100,000 users, an impressive start by most entrepreneurial standards.
I echoed the oohs, aahs, and coos reverberating on social media. At first glance, its ‘bionic’ reading interface felt like it could help me read better and faster. But moments later, my skeptical brain kicked in — are its claims backed up by science?
Where social proof is gold dust for startups, scientific proof is the platinum seal of approval. Take Elizabeth Holmes and her disgraced unicorn tech startup, Theranos. The whole sorry saga could have been avoided had their blood testing kit’s evidence (or lack of it) been there for the reading.
While I’m not suggesting any fraud on BR’s part — far, far from it — the Theranos story highlights why entrepreneurs with products with a scientific backstory need claims supported by science.
And there’s a huge amount at stake here. The ability, indeed the right to read, and to read well, should never be underestimated or undermined.
