Exactly what anyone with some common sense should have expected as soon as the hyped-up news reports and media appearances began[0]:<p>&gt; George Church of Harvard University, one of the expert judges for the 30 Under 30 project and one of the fathers of next-generation DNA sequencing, reviewed the paper and thought that many of the key claims that had been made of Andraka’s sensor – for instance, that it was 168 times faster, 26,667 times less expensive, and 400 times more sensitive than existing technologies – may not hold up, or at least require more work to be proven. I sent the paper to five more top scientists, who reviewed it, for the most part, anonymously. Most saw holes and said the results did not match the glowing accounts reported, well everywhere.<p>0: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;matthewherper&#x2F;2014&#x2F;01&#x2F;08&#x2F;why-biotech-whiz-kid-jack-andraka-is-not-on-the-forbes-30-under-30-list" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;matthewherper&#x2F;2014&#x2F;01&#x2F;08&#x2F;why-bio...</a>