Hacker News Reader

Experienced investors aren't going to invest much if the science isn't on a good foundation. Even if they would, that's a pretty expensive way to fund research: it's cheaper to fund it by grants or through revenue.

And were these experienced investors? :)

I am under the impression that they were experienced in IT but inexperienced in biomedical investments.

As I understand it, that's how it works with the VCs who specialize in biomedicine. They'll provide limited funding to scientists with a credible theory to see if it pans out, with further funding to ideally follow.

Theranos got way too far without having to prove their science.

Makes you wonder how much investor funding that would have otherwise gone to startups with an actual viable product was sucked up by Theranos.