The scamming came after the failure of the core premise of the startup: microfluidic lab-on-a-chip. My point was not to excuse the scamming, it was to switch focus back to the core ideas and not the people sporting black turtlenecks.

I suspect that if the original strategy worked the story would be different. Transparently reporting technical/business failure is an admirable trait but it is a different thing than innovation. Journalists and analysts should have been reporting on the scorecard (strategy/tactics/execution). When the company did a technical pivot why was this not enough to investigate the underlying cause? I'm a potential customer that wants this solution; I feel like I've been cheated by all involved.

QUESTION: if someone else succeeds with a microfluidic lab-on-a-chip can the regulators validate its efficacy?