Carreyrou's "Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup" falls firmly in my new favorite genre, something I've coined as "White Collar True Crime." Like Patrick Radden Keefe's "Empire of Pain" following the Sackler family's misdeeds or Chris Hamby's "Soul Full of Coal Dust" following the fight for coal miner's black lung benefits, Carreyrou's book is thoroughly researched investigative journalism with a narrative so compelling it reads like a thriller. Like many readers, once I started this book, it was hard to put down. I listened to the audiobook version, like I do with most nonfiction, and was constantly trying to carve out more time to listen to this book. I went on hour long walks for the sole purpose of listening to another chapter of this book!

Unlike traditional True Crime which deals with the gruesome and grisly, murders and kidnappings and so many unquestionably terrible things; "Bad Blood" focuses on corporate wrongdoings. Defrauding investors, intimidating employees, and ignoring regulatory guidelines designed to protect patients. These acts are arguably less engrossing than traditional True Crime, but not in the hands of Carreyrou. His pacing is incredible. The first part of the book is primarily expository, focusing on Holmes' backstory and explaining the technology Theranos was building. Tension gradually builds as the pressure to succeed mounts on Holmes and her behavior takes a turn for the vindictive and nefarious.

I work in Biotech so the story of Theranos hits close to home. I'm familiar with the innovative idealism of startups as well as the regulatory scrutiny the field falls under, rightfully so, that starkly differentiates it from other tech sectors. As Holmes discovered, the tech startup ethos of "Move fast and break things" doesn't work when your technology centers around providing critical medical information to patients. Biotech and Tech are simply not the same. The necessary capital, both financial and intellectual, for wet lab research and development is enormous. It's not something one researcher can start on their own without serious support from an already established academic lab or private company - no matter how determined and hard-working they are. You simply won't be able to get access to the necessary equipment or the training to use that equipment otherwise.

It's not shocking to me that Theranos didn't have their technology fully figured out when they went to court investors and partners; "building the plane as you fly it" is typical for startups. It's expensive to do wet lab R&D and you need investors to buy in before your product is finished just so you have the cash to do the development in the first place. What's shocking to me is so many of Holmes' staunch supporters, with deep pockets and powerful connections, did not seek out or actively ignored expert scientific counsel. I've never seen a biotech company whose board entirely lacks subject matter experts - scientists, doctors, and engineers with expertise in medical devices and blood testing.

Typically, when a company comes out with a disruptive technology like Theranos claimed, they publish a summary of work in an open source pre-print or in a peer-reviewed journal. At the very least they will share this data in a talk or poster at an industry conference. Theranos failed to do this and attracted a lot of skepticism from those in the industry, especially those who were working on the same problems (miniaturizing blood testing instruments, reducing the volume of blood required, and running multiple tests simultaneously). Somehow, though, the prominent members of her board like George Schultz, whose signature of endorsement seems to be all many other investors needed to buy into Theranos, never questioned the confusing lack of high-quality data. I think this speaks to the power of Holmes' charisma and conviction in her own idea and that fact that everyone, investors and the public alike, wanted Theranos to succeed. Having a young female founder was compelling and the technology, as Holmes presented it, truly had the power to disrupt the industry and improve patient's outcomes.

If Holmes had simply thrown in the towel when Theranos' technology clearly was failing and shut down the company, she would've been able to exit gracefully with her reputation and scientific integrity intact. She could've even continued to work on her technology and spun out another company further down the line. Truly, the greatest sin one can commit as a scientist is fabricating data. Once you stoop that low, there is no going back - no one will ever buy into your work again. How Holmes was able to continue to lie about Theranos' technology, even as their technology rolled out to the public in Walgreen's stores, is truly beyond my comprehensive. Exaggerating your successes to court investors is one thing, but to roll out tests you know beyond doubt are inaccurate and don't work as described is despicable.

The part that's hard to stomach is that endangering patients isn't even the worst of Holmes' crimes. The way she and Balwani threatened and intimidated the employees that dared to speak up and call out the scientific and moral wrongs they saw at Theranos was horrible. The bullying that led to the suicide of Ian Gibbens is the hardest part of this story for me to stomach. I've worked with so many scientists who are just like Gibbens. They have immense expertise due to their many years of experience, they're passionate about the work they do, and they truly want to do work that makes a difference. It broke my heart to hear his story and how Theranos abused him for trying to do the very thing they hired him to do: spearhead the development of a ground-breaking technology that could improve patients' lives. Truly, his only crime was having integrity. The fact that Gibbens isn't even the only employee they did this with is so disgusting. Even Eric Schultz, Theranos' first and most prominent whistleblower, only was able to withstand their aggressive litigation due to his wealthy family and personal connections.

Carryrou does an excellent job of weaving all the different threads of this story into a cohesive narrative. I would highly recommend this for anyone interested in science, true crime, or legal dramas.

P.S. Make sure you look up videos of Holmes speaking on YouTube if you're unfamiliar. Carreyrou spends a lot of time describing her deep baritone voice and it is just as jarring as he describes - definitely worth a listen!

I have a bit of an aversion to the elderly. I know that's an insane lead-in for a review of Backman's beloved, heart-warming novel "A Man Called Ove" and a potentially problematic take but stick with me here. I used to wait tables as a teenager at a popular diner and without a doubt, the worst customers to serve were always the older folks. They were just like Ove - opinionated, very vocal about said opinions, and expected absolute perfection. Living in a conservative, rural area they also had a bad habit of saying the most inappropriate, problematic things to me completely unprompted. Conversing with the elderly, always felt like stepping into a minefield. It was something I did with great apprehension and the understanding that things could take a turn for the worst at any moment. Needless to say, it's something I've spent most of my life avoiding and dreading.

I picked up a "A Man Called Ove" since it's a close friend's favorite and I was surprised by not only how much I enjoyed it but how much it impacted me. Backman's novel truly helped me cultivate more compassion for older folks - not something I expected to find going into reading this book. Backman's characterization is incredible. I love how he emphasizes the humanity of Ove. He is ill-tempered and impatient; but he is also loyal, helpful, and so deserving of love and happiness. Ove, like many elderly folks, seems to mask his loneliness, grief, and difficulty navigating an ever-changing world with anger and bitterness.

Reading this book, I realized that part of the reason why it can be so difficult for me to connect with the elderly is because it necessitates sitting with the parts of life that are more challenging to accept: my own death, loss of loved ones, and the fact that life sometimes changes irreversibility in ways you wish it wouldn't. The best parts of one's life are fleeting and sometimes they come to an end before we do. That's where the reader finds themselves starting the novel from Ove's perspective and we get to learn how to cope with that through Ove's story. I think "A Man Called Ove" is amazing because it is an exploration of grief and loss told through a comedic and light-hearted lens. From the hilarious neighborhood hijinks to Backman's simple and storybook-esque writing style, "A Man Called Ove" invites the reader to sit with the hardest parts of life while also being constantly reminded of the best parts of it. As many have said, this is a novel that will make you cry, laugh, smile, and contemplate your own life.

As a funny aside, somehow I completely missed the setting of this book was in Sweden until the very last chapter. The description of the neighborhood reminded me so much of the English row houses that I just sort of assumed the book took place in the U.K. despite the huge pile of evidence to the contrary. I'm laughing now looking back at all the obvious clues.