I was contacted by a talent acquisition professional regarding a Senior Scientist position at Shift Bioscience. After an initial interview with the CEO, I was asked to complete a technical task. The task involved defining a functional validation strategy for their candidate genes in the context of cellular rejuvenation—essentially the core focus of the advertised role. I submitted a comprehensive 2,500-word report and followed up with several questions via email. Unfortunately, none of my emails received a response. The next stage was a technical interview consisting of two parts: one focused on technical questions and another on hypothetical problem-solving scenarios. I completed the interview on time, even finishing five minutes early, so the feedback suggesting I needed to be “quicker” in answering hypothetical questions is baseless. After the interview, I received no direct feedback from the hiring managers. Instead, the headhunter who initially contacted me informed me that I was not selected. He mentioned that while I demonstrated strong technical capabilities, I was eliminated for not answering some hypothetical questions quickly or adequately. Ignoring technical expertise and eliminating a candidate based on their answers to hypothetical questions—especially when there’s no clear criteria—is not only unprofessional but also short-sighted. What prompted me to share this review was seeing the same position still open recently. This raises concerns about whether Shift Bioscience is genuinely seeking to fill this role or merely using the application process to gather functional validation ideas through technical tasks submitted by candidates. Overall, the lack of communication, transparency, and the questionable decision-making criteria left a poor impression. Clearer feedback, better candidate engagement, and a focus on relevant skills and expertise would greatly improve their hiring process.