The moral of the tale is . . .

Referring to the Elizabeth Holmes verdict of guilty on four of eleven charges. To Atrios, the moral is don't rip off rich people, which does indeed apply to the verdict per se. That was also the mistake made by Bernie Madoff and Bernie Ebbers as well. White collar criminals who rip off people of modest means (viz. Donald J. Trump) don't merit convictions. 

Andrew Gelman (whose blog I recommend in general although he tends to be quite long-winded) tried to relate the Theranos fraud to academic fraud, back in 2018, the occasion being a reading of John Carreyrou's expose "Bad Blood." I agree there are some parallels. Holmes is not a scientist, but she purported to have achieved a scientific, or at least technological breakthrough. Her marks were investors rather than academic journal reviewers, editors and readers. Actually in academic fraud the real marks are tenure and promotion committee members. But the ways people get away with it are similar. As Gelman writes:

 

I’m interested in the social processes by which obviously ridiculous statements just sit there, unchallenged and even actively supported, for years, by people who really should know better. Part of this is the way that liars violate norms—we expect scientists to tell the truth, so a lie can stand a long time before it is fully checked—part of it is wishful thinking, and part of it seems to be an attitude by people who are already overcommitted to a bad idea to protect their investment, if necessary by attacking truth-tellers who dispute their claims.

Gelman notes that Holmes had powerful friends. Even though people who worked for the company and knew that its technology was a hoax tried to blow the whistle, wealthy and powerful people from lawyer David Boies to Henry Kissinger and General Mattis, former Senator Bill Frist and others of similar fame owned stock and sat on the board of directors. University deans and provosts get dug in defending scientific fraudsters in a similar way. The con artist is bringing in grant money, spewing publications, attracting top talent grad students and junior faculty, and puffing up the prestige of the department, school and university. The potential loss and embarrassment of admitting the fraud is too much for them to contemplate.

Now, there's another moral common to both cases. Some scientific frauds have been maintained for suprisingly long -- comparably to the ten years or so the Theranos fraud managed to survive. But the truth is out there. The difference between scientific and unscientific beliefs is that scientific beliefs have to withstand the test of empirical reality. Sooner or later somebody is going to test your claims and find them to be hogwash. That has been the fate of Marc Hauser and Brian Wansink. But the short-term incentives lead a few people astray.