15 ms·

Google announces Calico, a new company that will focus on health and well-being

579 points by spankalee 13y ago

devanti 13y ago
the google founders' quest to live forever begins
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
MAGZine 13y ago
Wonder if this company is part of the reason for deciding to shutter Google Health? People might've been mighty upset if Google took their health records and then opened a website like this. Not saying that they still didn't benefit from the information dump
- psbp 13y ago
  I don't think this is a site. It seems like a research arm. They probably did use Google health to gather the prerequisite data.
cbhl 13y ago
I'm sceptical, since Google Health never quite caught on. There's room for improvement, certainly, but the regulatory requirements for mixing health and tech, and the externalities of dealing with vendors' proprietary formats will make this challenging at best.
- psbp 13y ago
  This doesn't seem like a Google Health type service.
  - cbhl 13y ago
    Even if it's more like Thalmic Labs or 23andMe, I'm worried about whether fundamental infrastructure (or a leap-frogging equivalent, like cell phones) will be widespread enough for this sort of research/work to be useful to the people who need it most. Like, there are feel-good stories like Dean Kamen's Slingshot (IIRC, he partnered with Coca-Cola to distribute the things) but I have absolutely no idea how well such things work in the field and the papers written about things like the Roundabout PlayPump are pretty damning.
jhardcastle 13y ago
Interesting is that Art Levinson will remain Chairman at Apple. Apparently the two giants are working together here. > Tim Cook, Chief Executive Officer of Apple, said: “For too many of our friends and family, life has been cut short or the quality of their life is too often lacking. Art is one of the crazy ones who thinks it doesn’t have to be this way. There is no one better suited to lead this mission and I am excited to see the results.”
- grinich 13y ago
  I think there's a pretty big misconception about Silicon Valley executives hating each other. (My guess is this comes from our media-driven obsession with the good vs. evil narrative.) In reality, a lot of these companies aren't that different, and the skills+personalities+struggles of CEOs are actually remarkably similar. They might have different opinions or frustration with the competition, but most of what they focus on is not letting the company die from the inside. i.e: AOL/Palm/HP/Netscape couldn't innovate and imploded. Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board up until the day shareholders (implicitly) deemed it to be a conflict of interest. I'm sure he was a great asset for Apple learning the importance of internet services. It's a shame that short-sighted investors are too captivated by competition to realize how cooperative Silicon Valley really is. There are only a handful of situations in tech where crushing your competition is actually a positive strategic move. The rising tide floats all boats.
  - nostromo 13y ago
    More evidence of this is the Breakthrough Prize: http://breakthroughprizeinlifesciences.org/sponsors http://breakthroughprizeinlifesciences.org/sponsors Sponsored by Sergey Brin and Mark Zuckerberg (and Yuri Milner).
- dchichkov 13y ago
  ... one of the sensible ones ...
api 13y ago
I'd love to see some of these want-to-live-forever transhumanist moneybags actually put some money behind some of these things and move them past the pipe dream phase. I hope this is somehow a step in that direction. BTW: Calico... what a non-ValleyHipster name...
- bitwize 13y ago
  BTW: Calico... what a non-ValleyHipster name... Yeah... they should have gone with Doctr.
  - ianstallings 13y ago
    .io
o0-0o 13y ago
I can't see the page, it says... This post could not be found. Your URL may be incorrect, the post may have been deleted, or this account may not have access to the post. This is the URL it takes me to: https://plus.google.com/+LarryPage/posts/Lh8SKC6sED1 https://plus.google.com/+LarryPage/posts/Lh8SKC6sED1
- cbhl 13y ago
  It's a public Google+ by Larry Page: ----- I’m excited to announce Calico, a new company that will focus on health and well-being, in particular the challenge of aging and associated diseases. Art Levinson, Chairman and former CEO of Genentech and Chairman of Apple, will be Chief Executive Officer. OK … so you’re probably thinking wow! That’s a lot different from what Google does today. And you’re right. But as we explained in our first letter to shareholders, there’s tremendous potential for technology more generally to improve people’s lives. So don’t be surprised if we invest in projects that seem strange or speculative compared with our existing Internet businesses. And please remember that new investments like this are very small by comparison to our core business. Art and I are excited about tackling aging and illness. These issues affect us all—from the decreased mobility and mental agility that comes with age, to life-threatening diseases that exact a terrible physical and emotional toll on individuals and families. And while this is clearly a longer-term bet, we believe we can make good progress within reasonable timescales with the right goals and the right people. Our press release has a few more details though it’s still very early days so there’s not much more to share yet. Of course when Art has something more substantial to communicate (and that will likely take time), he’ll provide an update. Finally, thanks to Bill Maris for helping bring this idea to life and getting Art involved, and to Sergey Brin for consistently supporting 10X thinking like this. It’s hard for many companies to make long term investments. So I’m tremendously excited about the innovative new way we’re funding this project. Now for the hard work! http://googlepress.blogspot.com/2013/09/calico-announcement.html http://googlepress.blogspot.com/2013/09/calico-announcement....
FD3SA 13y ago
Absolutely brilliant. Finally, Aubrey De Grey's unapologetically straightforward logic [1] regarding aging has gained traction with the crowd who has the means to tackle this grand challenge. I am sincerely proud of Page and Brin for their vision and commitment. This is one of those rare times that powerful people make bold choices that catalyze a shift in the world's thought paradigm. Aging will now be seen for what it is: the root of all chronic illness. 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMAwnA5WvLc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMAwnA5WvLc
- MikeCapone 13y ago
  This is great if they do take the engineering approach of SENS and Aubrey de Grey. Ideally they would partner with SENS.org since they already have a lot of the infrastructure set up.
  - epicureanideal 13y ago
    Agreed. I love that mainstream companies with lots of money are getting involved though. It's nice to be ahead of the curve but it's even better when the curve catches up.
    - MikeCapone 13y ago
      Absolutely. Right now money is the bottleneck for the things that SENS is doing, so rich companies joining in are very welcome, as is the mainstream coverage that will come with them (hopefully resulting in more donations).
- brd 13y ago
  Ever since coming across Aubrey De Grey I've been waiting for a more mainstream adoption of his ideas. I can only hope you're right and that this announcement will incite real change in the public's opinion on age.
- 300bps 13y ago
  catalyze a shift in the world's thought paradigm Absolutely. The goal should be to enact a vector of a new paradigm, as proactive team players synergize an out-of-the-box strategy of functionality and infotainment, re-engineering the learning curve framework of your dotted-line relationship.
throwaway172 13y ago
To what extent is this guided by the self-interest of aging tech darling CEOs (Larry Page must be in his 40s by now)? As a young person I tend to think "some of these health issues ought to be solved problems by the time I'm older." But I don't have the kind of capital to spend on it that companies like Google, or persons like Larry Page, do. Regardless of motivation, I'm happy to see investment in this domain.
- mattlutze 13y ago
  It's self-interest to the extent that needs be to get some traction in quality of life issues. The capital us youngins have is time and ability if not money. This is a great example of moguls and companies willing to put that resource in given an availability of the talent and ability.
- turing 13y ago
  Both Page and Brin turned 40 this year. There's also Brin's heightened risk of Parkinson's. His mother has it, and according to Wikipedia "both he and his mother possess a mutation of the LRRK2 gene (G2019S) that puts the likelihood of his developing Parkinson's in later years between 20 and 80%". He's donated to Parkinson's research in the past, and this investment is certainly along the same lines.
  - alina24 13y ago
    Original - http://too.blogspot.com/2008/09/lrrk2.html http://too.blogspot.com/2008/09/lrrk2.html
- melling 13y ago
  How many diseases have we cured in the past 20 years? The past 40 years? Medical advances are really, really slow. As for the "self-interest" question (that's why you created a throw away account?), I'm sure as you get a little older, and you notice people dying who are close to your age, you might be wish that people took an interest in being self-serving a couple decades earlier. Steve Jobs, for example, had billions of dollars, had his genome sequenced, and probably tried very hard not to die so young. I bet if he had known 10 years earlier that he was going to die from pancreatic cancer, some of that money would have gone into searching for a cure. Larry Page might live a perfectly healthy life, die in his sleep at 101, out living most of us. However, if you've got that kind of money and influence, why not buy some real insurance.
hglaser 13y ago
Why is Google announcing this company? Will Google own it? Invest in it?
gvr 13y ago
This sounds super interesting. I couldn't find a site for the company; do they have one? Calico.com is registered to Oracle and there's nothing there.
- MyNewAccount99 13y ago
  maybe they are partnering w/ them. which makes sense. cause Larry Ellison has invested a lot in those extending life of mice competitions and in general extending life research.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ianstallings 13y ago
I for one welcome my immortal transhumanist cyborg overlords. But seriously, the fact that the first thing they do is start a corporation to control the science is not exactly comforting to me. Genentech is known for selling Avastin, their drug that fights cancer for $55k after they received harsh criticism for the proposed cost of $100k+/year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bevacizumab#Costs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bevacizumab#Costs I fear a future where "all men are created equal", but only some can afford to become immortal and others cannot. We already see some of that now. Tons of ethical questions around this topic.
- netrus 13y ago
  I for one fear a future where anyone can become immortal. This would result in unimaginable struggles for our ecosystem. I always feel modern medicine should focus on raising life quality for as long as we are alive, rather than extending life itself. But of course this view is painted by the large number of old people living in inhuman conditions we currently have.
  - moistgorilla 13y ago
    Being immortal and having a high quality of life for as long as we are alive are not mutually exclusive. In fact, don't we have longer lives and better quality of life than our ancestors already? This would just be taking it one step further. Also, having a population that never dies has many more benefits than consequences. The amount of knowledge and experience that will not be wasted because of death is extremely valuable. Also, who says people will be giving birth to children as often as they are currently doing when they don't fear dying. Already in most developed nations the rate of population growth is plateauing. Also, don't forget we have an entire universe at our fingertips. I'm sure when we have 200 year old aerospace engineers and physicists we will be able to get to colonize other planets much faster.
    - netcan 13y ago
      Regarding quality of our ancestors: Yes, but there are downsides too. We probably have longer periods of lower quality of life. We improved both quality and length. But we improved length more. I hope for more youth, not just more life.
mrschwabe 13y ago
Apparently your internet browsing data is not enough, Google also wants your medical records and DNA. Seriously though, I wouldn't trust any company connected with Google for 'health and well being'. Their total disregard for privacy would imply they are not working in my best interest for health either.
- psbp 13y ago
  Did anyone read the article? This seems to be a biomedical company focused on engineering solutions to aging/illness. It's seemingly not Google Health 2.0.
  - mrschwabe 13y ago
    Sure, but if their plans involve bringing said solutions to the masses - this skepticism applies. Just imagine the millions of hipsters lining up for the Google, er, Calico vaccination.
    - psbp 13y ago
      Google has a history of opening up its research. I doubt the medical community would accept a "google" vaccine without overwhelming consensus.
      - frozenport 13y ago
        The medical community has shown itself time and again to accept treatments with marginal advatnages and meciine with dubous wholistic heatlh effects (trading stroke for cancer). At the end of the day, pharmacueticals are not know for integrity.
    - rybosome 13y ago
      Hipsters like Google? I thought hipsters liked Apple...or do they just like whatever you dislike?
  - VLM 13y ago
    Not necessarily opposite approaches. If they have all the data on everything I've ever purchased to eat (they probably do...) then they've probably got it on everyone and it would be interesting to produce the definitive statistical analysis of exactly how much corn syrup you have to drink over a lifetime to achieve a 50% chance of diabetes.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
gdulli 13y ago
I'd rather see a high quality of life for everyone on earth for 80 years than 150+ year life spans for the first world. Which will just further increase the footprint of the rich and divert resources from the poor. Not to mention, it's a more attainable goal. It doesn't help much to keep the body going for 50 more years if you can't also keep the brain going. I believe these are very different problems. If you can somehow solve both, it doesn't help if you can't feed and house all these people.
- abstractbill 13y ago
  I believe these are very different problems. Aubrey de Grey believes they are not different. If he's right, the only way you could keep people perfectly healthy up to age 80 without them living much longer would be to execute on his plan (or a similar one), and then kill people once they got old enough.
- VikingCoder 13y ago
  You either believe in capitalism, or you don't. Google believes in capitalism. They will offer goods and services to people who can afford them, and they will also work to make their products more accessible to those with limited resources. I personally believe Android will have enormous long-lasting positive impacts on the rest of the world. A $25 smartphone ... A $10 smartphone... A $5 smartphone... Giving access to instant communication, and huge amounts of information, will in the long run dramatically improve human lives. My personal opinion.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    I also disagree with the parent poster but you absolutely do not either "believe in capitalism, or you don't". The only pure capitalist societies are anarchist hellholes. Among nice societies, capitalism is implemented all sorts of different ways with the things capitalism does poorly[1] papered over in different ways. [1] law enforcement, basic standard of living for all, various economic regulations to address market failures, e.g. I can't legally plug in a transmitter at 100MHz and 1000 watts and black out WNBC in my neighborhood, and can't sell capitalist let-the-market-decide food out of a roach den
waterlesscloud 13y ago
"So I’m tremendously excited about the innovative new way we’re funding this project" What does that refer to?
- notatoad 13y ago
  from the Time article[1], although they don't say it explicitly i get the impression that they're going to run it essentially like a charity - just dump money on it, and not expect any financial return. [1] http://business.time.com/2013/09/18/google-extend-human-life/ http://business.time.com/2013/09/18/google-extend-human-life...
  - gesman 13y ago
    ...or ANY return.
  - julespitt 13y ago
    Peculiar it isn't just set up as a charity then. Although perhaps Larry Page just wants to avoid the strange vagaries of non-profit governance, if I were to guess why.
    - notatoad 13y ago
      setting it up as a charity causes trouble if they want to start collecting profits down the road. non-profits don't get to become for-profit as soon as they build something profitable.
orky56 13y ago
Not surprised in the least that Page referenced Bill Marris for "bringing this idea to life." Marris has been pivotal in taking Google beyond its traditional role with this and Google Ventures. He has recognized and successfully utilized Google's resources to push Google to its full potential and reshape what Google stands for. Very excited to see what happens with Calico and Marris' next achievements.
siljrath 13y ago
yup. valid cncerns, good comments. bring on some more michael tellinger -ism, then we can have a bit more peace of mind about the aubrey de gray -ism, when it's not part of that capitalist, corporatist, monopolist-wannabe paradigm. could be great tho. (love the comment: rising tide floats all boats)
crassus 13y ago
This is a great first step. But realistically they can only move so fast with FDA regulation increasing your iteration cycle time on therapies to 10 years. Our biomedical regulatory regime is extremely risk averse. If we had a regime where anyone could voluntarily place any therapy into their own body, we'd move a lot faster. Yes, a few more people would die in testing. But a lot more lives would be saved by the therapies produced.
- diydsp 13y ago
  Not only would more die in testing, but more would die in everyday use and results would be so mixed you could hardly get any information out of the experiments. One of my biggest clients is in the medical device industry. From the surface appearance, any company could make a simulacrum of their main products with perhaps 90% cost-cutting... but life-saving devices are not like inferior iPods or graphic designs. It's not just things like a crappy user interface, poorer display quality and periodic crashes interrupting your musical flow you would have to deal with if any New Jack could make medical devices, but infection, worsened health, extraneous visits to doctors, untraceable health conditions, lack of accountability by your doctor and yes, death through everyday use, etc. After hearing conservative cheapskates bitch about wasted expenses of FDA regulation and liberals bitch about "how easy it is to walk around the FDA," I have come to fully doubt both (read: realize how much they're talking out of their ani) and respect the FDA after working in such close vicinity to them. And anyway, yes anyone can voluntarily place any therapy in your body- you just can't get a corporation to help you with it in the U.S.
- paul 13y ago
  Medical tourism partially solves this. If someone develops an amazing treatment I need, I wouldn't mind traveling to another country to get it.
- canvia 13y ago
  The root cause is sociopathic control freaks who think they know best, and want to tell other people what to do. It's the reason why so many victimless crimes are punishable with prison time. You can't dictate morality. Preventing someone from doing whatever they please with their body is what is truly immoral, society just needs to realize that.
frozenport 13y ago
With all that Google knows about you, they might as well have a clone ready when you die!
- VLM 13y ago
  Unless you're about 95 years old today, GOOG will probably shutter the service before you die. They already went thru one iteration of electronic medical record, which is too bad because it sounded interesting but the first time I heard about it was on a READER feed as it was being shutdown. Before READER shut down of course.
saucetenuto 13y ago
So now we know what Steve Yegge was talking about, when he said he was moving to some mysterious "making peoples' lives better" project. Cool.
robomartin 13y ago
This is potentially great news. The funny thing is that the first thing that crossed my mind is a book I read many years ago: Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition. http://www.amazon.com/Great-Mambo-Chicken-Transhuman-Condition/dp/0201567512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379525359&sr=8-1&keywords=great+mambo+chicken http://www.amazon.com/Great-Mambo-Chicken-Transhuman-Conditi...
rottyguy 13y ago
A potential side-effect to this company would be googles technology expertise married to the biotech/pharma? world. We often hear that this drug cost billions to manufacture and therefore we need to recoup our costs through it's sales. Perhaps we see less expensive drugs as a result during this journey. That would be a huge win IMO.
rhizome 13y ago
This is a fairly predictable feel-good initiative after being hammered on their involvement in NSA matters.
bsullivan01 13y ago
Great, but will wait till something cool comes out of it, or when they shut it down. Right now that's all I can say with the info given. But yeah, Google has managed to suck the oxygen out of others with every new announcement (self-driving cars are one example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#History )
- gefh 13y ago
  Tesla, Mercedes, and others are all working _harder_ on self driving cars now.
  - bsullivan01 13y ago
    Who's getting virtually all the press? That was my point
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
JonFish85 13y ago
Ok, I'll bite: what is the over/under on when this will be shut down like so many other Google projects? (Question is only half-serious)
- notatoad 13y ago
  it will be shut down when management decides it no longer has a chance of being successful. if it is successful, it will not be shut down. stop getting emotionally attached to google products. they aren't your children.
  - JonFish85 13y ago
    Yikes, that's a little harsh. I don't really care about any of the products they've shut down, it was just a tongue-in-cheek observation that I find curious. I use Google search, calendar & gmail. If they shut those down, I'd be sad. Otherwise I don't really care much.
    - notatoad 13y ago
      if you cared as little as you are pretending to, you wouldn't feel a need to whine about it. every single article relating to anything google, there's a bunch of you down at the bottom of the comments section whining about google shutting down failing products. get over it, or at least shut up about it. it's not funny, it's just pathetic. google is a company, they shut down products when they aren't working out. that's how companies work.
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
Most of the world suffers from the health problem of never even reaching a ripe old age, and much of the rest from the problem of not being able to afford it, and increasingly so. This is not about making the world a better place. This about allowing the elite that can afford it to live forever.
- astrodust 13y ago
  Plus the one thing Google doesn't have access to at the moment is your medical records. I guess this fixes that.
  - anfedorov 13y ago
    They used to have a service for exactly that: http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/health/about/ http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/health/about/
    - specialist 13y ago
      I worked for a startup in the electronic medical records space. Data interchange. We had various interactions with both the Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault teams. They were both making patient facing apps, ours was physician (and staff) facing. We had a patient facing app, because all the hospitals thought it'd drive admissions. But at the time no doctor would trust patient's data. To the best of my knowledge, that hasn't changed (five years on). The "quantified self" movement may change the perception of patient gathered data. When data collection is automatic, standardized. More importantly, when doctors are doing it for themselves, so are familiar with the tools and culture. So, in short, Google Health and MS HealthVault were just wishful thinking. There was no "there" there.
  - cookingrobot 13y ago
    Calico is a different company, so if some day you decide to give them access to your medical records, that won't automatically give access to google.
ape4 13y ago
Self driving cars would be good for old folks.
nova 13y ago
Well, deathism going out of fashion with one of the biggest technological companies of the world can only be good. This is the greatest news I've heard in a long time and even if it ends up in nothing the attitude alone is commendable.
ilbe 13y ago
Fine, but, I would say that before one jumps into whatever treatments will be offered, given capable legs, they must first walk and ride a bike more.
gesman 13y ago
No wonder my health and personal development related site dropped from the first page of Google to nowhere. Replaced by bunch of Youtube links and wikipedia. Google is getting into conflict-of-interest endeavors.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
So basically, Google are now openly admitting that they're trying to take over the world.
- mcv 13y ago
  Not so much "taking over" as "being given in exchange for eternal life". They know how to make any deal attractive.
brownBananas 13y ago
Not going to lie, I read the first two lines, stopped, opened a new tab, and searched for Calico. Then came back and read the rest of the post.
- vacri 13y ago
  I really wish tech companies would stop naming themselves after things that already exist. It just pollutes the search space, and there are plenty of nonce words out there that sound cool.
kafkaesque 13y ago
Have to put on my tin foil hat for this. NSA-related, too, so you're warned. This makes me wonder just how much Google works with the US government. I'm not saying the result of whatever Calico wants or will do (because it's all pretty vague right now) is a negative. But Calico seems to come at a time when Obama is pushing for universal health care, which will be a huge industry. Last I heard, it was estimated at $1.1 trillion. It just feels like the US has a tendency to take something good (universal health care), and make it into something bad ("We will use this to profile/monitor every US citizen").
- StavrosK 13y ago
  Oh wow... That's... a pretty big leap.
  - kafkaesque 13y ago
    It is. I'm still excited for the details on Calico. It was just a thought that crossed my mind.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  Healthcare is based on science, and science requires data processing to see the correlations. We'd probably be able to spot a lot more common causes of diseases if people weren't so guarded with their medical history. This doesn't really have anything to do with government, it has to do with solving problems. The US already has HIPAA, so I don't get the point. This just seems like a weak attempt to say something negative about Google's announcement.
  - kafkaesque 13y ago
    Medical history is a double-edged sword in the US. Why do you think people are so reluctant to share it when they are being judged, charged more, charged less, etc. depending on it? If this weren't the case, some Americans wouldn't have a problem with 'divulging' their medical history. Health care is based on science, you're right, but there are factors that influence what is researched and where funds go. Plus, putting it in practice or implementing it according to the right policy; this is another issue.[1] Also, I think you're undermining the magnitude of lobbying. But Google is a huge company, with a lot of power and capital. So, like I said in response to someone else, I am very interested in the details of Calico. [1] http://billmoyers.com/2013/05/18/blinding-us-from-science/ http://billmoyers.com/2013/05/18/blinding-us-from-science/
PeterisP 13y ago
An interesting trend is that we're now no longer relying on governments to pursue big, hairy, audacious goals. Governments and also capital markets nowadays seem unable to pursue any really long-term projects at all. Instead, all the future-advancing progress seems to be made by independently rich individuals; and also not by the "aristocratic-rich" families, but by noveau riche upstarts such as Brin, Musk and others. What does it say about our current, traditional institutions if they seem unable to do that? Are they broken, and can they be fixed somehow?
- FrojoS 13y ago
  There might be a trend, yes, but we are still almost entirely relying on government funded research. So much that it will stay this way for a very long time. Have you compared say the US health care budget with say the funding of the Gates foundation.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  Our research institutions are not broken. They are actively defunded, disabled, and handcuffed by an elite class who would rather return to the days of aristocratic decision-making than subject themselves to democracy.
- Eliezer 13y ago
  In the depths of the Great Stagnation, all significant technological progress occurs due to ascended post-exit Silicon Valley moguls personally funding it (with money they own or fully control) out of the goodness of their own hearts. Venture capitalists can't see how to flip it in 3 years and science bureaucrats can only give money to other bureaucrats.
joering2 13y ago
Disclaimer: I do not hate Google; I use their search and email daily. I hate to be this guy, but... > OK so you’re probably thinking wow! That’s a lot different from what Google does today. Not really. Google is in a business of selling ads. In addition, they do make money on selling/sharing/exchanging information, mostly indirectly. > But as we explained in our first letter to shareholders, there’s tremendous potential for technology more generally to improve people’s lives. .. and shareholders did not care about that. If you own shares of a hospital chain then you may care. But when you hold shares of Subway, Coca-Cola or Google, in those particular markets you care less about people's lives. You care about bottom line. > So don’t be surprised if we invest in projects that seem strange or speculative compared with our existing Internet businesses. We are not surprised. But since you sun-setting pretty good, useful projects like Google Reader, and you taking Jobs advice of "stay focus on only couple [most profitable] projects at the time", we ask: "where is the catch and how you gonna make money _otherwise_ than selling info or exchanging it?" Just recently I have cancelled my 23andme kit (they gave me some hardtime though and never fully recovered the fee (taking legal action is simply not worth the $)), because after doing some research I found it that 23&me owner is family with Brin. There is no chance in this world you will tell me Google will not try to make money off of my DNA this or another way) http://www.crunchbase.com/company/23andme http://www.crunchbase.com/company/23andme
- cromwellian 13y ago
  Guilty-by-association and paranoia. Check. (23andme is not owned by Google and I'm pretty sure their T&S/privacy policy and HIPAA cover what can be done with your personal records) Obligatory and irrelevant Google Reader reference. Check. Right, the world would be better off if Google spent more time investing in yet more social sharing web app features, and not on reducing high way fatalities or increasing health. Missing. No mention of PRISM.
  - brymaster 13y ago
    Googler drunk on company koolaid. Check.
    - 13y ago
taigeair 13y ago
is there a website for this?
blahbl4hblah 13y ago
Jesus. Every now and then Google trots out some hair brained bullshit that everyone just eats up with a spoon. They throw some money at some crazy idea that makes everyone giggle and goes back to tracking your web searches. THEY SELL ADVERTISING. This is a type of advertising where they convince people they are some benevolent company that's really looking out for you. Jesus.
ph0rque 13y ago
Someone should write a short story (Doctorow, perhaps?) of a supercentenarian baby-boomer who is woken from a coma to suddenly find himself unwillingly young again, and explore the moral ramifications.
Techowl 13y ago
There are a lot of ethical arguments happening in this thread, and I'm concerned that most of them are missing the point. They tend to center on the idea that these technologies will help the wealthy, while leaving most of the world to suffer. I'd love to see Google work on initiatives to give the world's poor access to clean water and basic healthcare. Those are awesome causes -- maybe the world's most awesome. But if we categorize pressing third-world health issues as the World's Most Awesome Cause, well, aren't age-related diseases the World's Second Most Awesome Cause? We should for sure allocate more resources to the World's Most Awesome Cause. But why are people attacking funding for the World's Second Most Awesome Cause? Convince people not to buy top-tier smartphones, or expensive cars, or big houses, and donate to charity instead. But don't try to convince people to die of heart disease. Even if this new Google initiative isn't the absolutely most optimal way to spend money to serve humanity, it's pretty high up on the list. Please remember that about two-thirds of all deaths world-wide are caused by aging [1]. It isn't just the elite who are getting heart attacks, and long-term, I'd be shocked if it were only the elite who were receiving effective treatments to prevent them. 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate Edit: formatting.
antirez 13y ago
Cool, however while waiting for their results, please eat healthy, do a lot of gym, lift heavy weight and become stronger.
tomw1808 13y ago
Wow, sounds like Monsanto for Nerds.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Wow, sounds like Monsanto for Nerds. Its more like Genentech (at least in focal domain) than Monsanto, but "Genentech for Nerds" would be still just be Genentech -- who, incidentally, shares its Chairman with Calico.
kaws 13y ago
Wow! This reminds me of a comment I saw on HN, or maybe it was a blog post about either Google's Project Loon, or Google Glass. I can't seem to find a link or the actual author, but they essentially said: "What I care about is that Google has become a machine that turns advertising dollars into fundamentally groundbreaking new projects like Google Glass, Project Loon, and self-driving cars. They’re not just trying to make money: they’re trying to use that money on far-fetched moon-shot projects with the chance to be genuinely revolutionary. I admire that." Now they are investing in a new realm where they are "excited about tackling aging and illness." Google's ambition, and vision is inspiring! Hopefully we see some innovation in this sector from this investment.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
BrainInAJar 13y ago
*Google announces Calico, a new company that will harvest your private medical data in to the Google panopticon, in order to sell you to advertisers.
- cookingrobot 13y ago
  If they wanted your health data they'd just make this a new google service. By making it a new seperate company they've gone out of their way to ensure they don't have access to that data.
Legogris 13y ago
Am I the only one seeing the obvious connection between this, Google's general business model and technologies and the recruitment of Ray Kurzweil as Director of Engineering? If and when we realize the singularity is a real possibility, Google will have the platform ready. For better or worse.
product50 13y ago
Meanwhile Microsoft gives $40B back to shareholders.
narrator 13y ago
The low budget open source version of this is going on over at longecity.org
kinnth 13y ago
What a ploy! It's so that you will search more throughout your life time! Cunning buggers! :D
znowi 13y ago
Fountain of youth for the rich. This is a lot more profitable than selling ads on the net :)
X4 13y ago
human subject a892857 identified with probability to get hit by bus -> starting assisnation drone to increase efficiency. Art Levinson, Chairman and former CEO of Genentech and Chairman of Apple, will be Chief Execution Officer. The fact they open Calic makes me hate them. They could have gone in every sector, but not in the one that is there to actually improve our life. They will algorithmically help kill much more people efficiently. Money powers the healthchare system.
tassl 13y ago
I have always been interested on life-extension with a focus on healthy life. My background is mainly engineering (computer science, mechanical engineering) with focus on machine learning and statistics. I was thinking on taking some graduate program that would help the transition in this kind of companies; does anybody knows a university/program that would help? I have checked some graduate bioinformatics, but I am not sure what would be more helpful in the long term. Any idea/suggestion?
- Lost_BiomedE 13y ago
  In the current environment, if you already have an engineering undergrad, an MBA would do you best. I am not a fan of the programs, but the degree will open doors that are mostly shut for pure engineers. In many areas and locals, not necessarily Silicon Valley, a pure engineering man is seen as a lackey. An engineer with business cred is considered valuable, just my experience.
  - tassl 13y ago
    Thanks for your answer! I guess I would have to be more precise :) My intent is to have a technical role in the space, not a management one. I can imagine how most of the problems facing require machine learning and statistics, so I am more interested on how to complement these skills to be able to transition into an space that fascinates me.
    - Lost_BiomedE 13y ago
      Depends. In a mid-sized company, they expect senior/VP technical lead to have something like an MBA. In a small start-up, founders are generally required to be able to navigate both sides a bit. I would really consider it. You can learn what you want on the technical side outside of college. Now, if you want to be in a research institution or academia, you don't need the MBA, but then there is the whole can of worms of how to gain influence enough to do the research you want.
rodly 13y ago
Call me crazy here guys, but what exactly will Calico produce/make/do/etc? The top comment makes me feel like I'm missing a magical paragraph in the OP that details their cure for death, ugliness and stupidity.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Call me crazy here guys, but what exactly will Calico produce/make/do/etc? Presumably, its going to do research (probably secondary with an aim to commercialization, rather than basic research) on health problems, particularly on aging and aging-related diseases. > The top comment makes me feel like I'm missing a magical paragraph in the OP that details their cure for death, ugliness and stupidity. Its not a startup looking for venture capital that needs to demonstrate an MVP to attract investors in the near term, its a project that's already funded by Google as a small (by comparison to Google's available resources), effort. Efforts like that don't need to have a product on day one, they need a mission.
melange 13y ago
I wonder why they chose today to announce this.
sachdevap 13y ago
Pop the Google pill and get a healthy life, with some ads on your arms and back.
nomoral 13y ago
people, aging is not a bug, its a feature!
- pjscott 13y ago
  I don't want it to happen, and it sucks. Call it a bug, or call it a feature, but remember that what you call it doesn't make it any more desirable.
zmmmmm 13y ago
Weird thing for Page to say: > So I’m tremendously excited about the innovative new way we’re funding this project Are they doing something other than just dumping money into it, siphoned from their core business? Or am I reading this wrong?
ghostdiver 13y ago
CPC in AdWords will skyrocket on Calcio pages and in SERPS overall, the price of SEO in health* niche will also be very high, because as I guess Google will use SERPs to promote their new business.
sunseb 13y ago
We are close to immortality, but we are also close to self-extinction. Isn't that fascinating ?
mehuldesai 13y ago
Typical of the billionaires. Is the aging funding for society or there own motality. Ellison does stuff like this. I didn't read the article fully but on the surface they would be better doing as Gates is doing, funding suffering. Funding their own future to me is not very honorable and respectful.
creativestar 13y ago
http://www.starcom.com.pk http://www.starcom.com.pk Star Communication Services (STARCOM) is a market leading System Integrator and Distributor Company with the proven reputation as Network specialists.
outside1234 13y ago
Google sure has a short memory: http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/health/about/ http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/health/about/
_pferreir_ 13y ago
Why not targeting something like this instead? http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jun/13/antibiotics-crisis-already-happening http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jun/13/antibiotics-c... I think it will be much more of a problem in the long term than aging (pun not intended).
tarwatirno 13y ago
To the people who are saying that this will only be for the rich: I would like to point out that we already spend over $500 billion on Medicare. In other words we already spend 10 times Google's yearly revenue, half-assedly patching up the symptoms of the disease that every single human is already afflicted with, and we do it for everyone. If they actually solve this problem, it won't go only to rich people, because of the amount of money that buying it for everyone will save everyone. (Yes, some problems might come in if they invent something that can keep you young if you start at 30, but doesn't do anything if you start at 65, however the long term benefit would still be amazing and maybe make the Republicans' dream of getting rid of Medicare finally come true...) To the people who say death is natural: Many, many natural things are bad (high child mortality, smallpox, etc.) and many artificial things are good (antibiotics, vaccines, the computer letting you read this comment.) Naturalistic Fallacy. To the people who say death is good: No it's not. My parents had me when they were older. Now my dad has a kind of cancer that is associated with aging (multiple myeloma.) He was diagnosed my first year of college (luckily he has been doing rather well considering for five years now.) I get to look forward to loosing him before I turn 30. I don't care why you think death is great because of its benefit to society; I don't want to loose my dad. Also, my kids will almost certainly never know their grandfather, just like I never knew mine (He died of the same kind of cancer a few months before I was born,) which is sad. You are severely underestimating the value of not having to watch people you care about shrivel up before your eyes and be irrevocably destroyed, knowing that there is nothing you can do to stop it.

579 points by spankalee 13y ago

devanti 13y ago

the google founders' quest to live forever begins

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

MAGZine 13y ago

Wonder if this company is part of the reason for deciding to shutter Google Health? People might've been mighty upset if Google took their health records and then opened a website like this. Not saying that they still didn't benefit from the information dump

psbp 13y ago
I don't think this is a site. It seems like a research arm. They probably did use Google health to gather the prerequisite data.

cbhl 13y ago

I'm sceptical, since Google Health never quite caught on. There's room for improvement, certainly, but the regulatory requirements for mixing health and tech, and the externalities of dealing with vendors' proprietary formats will make this challenging at best.

psbp 13y ago
This doesn't seem like a Google Health type service.
- cbhl 13y ago
  Even if it's more like Thalmic Labs or 23andMe, I'm worried about whether fundamental infrastructure (or a leap-frogging equivalent, like cell phones) will be widespread enough for this sort of research/work to be useful to the people who need it most. Like, there are feel-good stories like Dean Kamen's Slingshot (IIRC, he partnered with Coca-Cola to distribute the things) but I have absolutely no idea how well such things work in the field and the papers written about things like the Roundabout PlayPump are pretty damning.

jhardcastle 13y ago

Interesting is that Art Levinson will remain Chairman at Apple. Apparently the two giants are working together here. > Tim Cook, Chief Executive Officer of Apple, said: “For too many of our friends and family, life has been cut short or the quality of their life is too often lacking. Art is one of the crazy ones who thinks it doesn’t have to be this way. There is no one better suited to lead this mission and I am excited to see the results.”

grinich 13y ago
I think there's a pretty big misconception about Silicon Valley executives hating each other. (My guess is this comes from our media-driven obsession with the good vs. evil narrative.) In reality, a lot of these companies aren't that different, and the skills+personalities+struggles of CEOs are actually remarkably similar. They might have different opinions or frustration with the competition, but most of what they focus on is not letting the company die from the inside. i.e: AOL/Palm/HP/Netscape couldn't innovate and imploded. Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board up until the day shareholders (implicitly) deemed it to be a conflict of interest. I'm sure he was a great asset for Apple learning the importance of internet services. It's a shame that short-sighted investors are too captivated by competition to realize how cooperative Silicon Valley really is. There are only a handful of situations in tech where crushing your competition is actually a positive strategic move. The rising tide floats all boats.
- nostromo 13y ago
  More evidence of this is the Breakthrough Prize: http://breakthroughprizeinlifesciences.org/sponsors http://breakthroughprizeinlifesciences.org/sponsors Sponsored by Sergey Brin and Mark Zuckerberg (and Yuri Milner).
dchichkov 13y ago
... one of the sensible ones ...

api 13y ago

I'd love to see some of these want-to-live-forever transhumanist moneybags actually put some money behind some of these things and move them past the pipe dream phase. I hope this is somehow a step in that direction. BTW: Calico... what a non-ValleyHipster name...

bitwize 13y ago
BTW: Calico... what a non-ValleyHipster name... Yeah... they should have gone with Doctr.
- ianstallings 13y ago
  .io

o0-0o 13y ago

I can't see the page, it says... This post could not be found. Your URL may be incorrect, the post may have been deleted, or this account may not have access to the post. This is the URL it takes me to: https://plus.google.com/+LarryPage/posts/Lh8SKC6sED1 https://plus.google.com/+LarryPage/posts/Lh8SKC6sED1

cbhl 13y ago
It's a public Google+ by Larry Page: ----- I’m excited to announce Calico, a new company that will focus on health and well-being, in particular the challenge of aging and associated diseases. Art Levinson, Chairman and former CEO of Genentech and Chairman of Apple, will be Chief Executive Officer. OK … so you’re probably thinking wow! That’s a lot different from what Google does today. And you’re right. But as we explained in our first letter to shareholders, there’s tremendous potential for technology more generally to improve people’s lives. So don’t be surprised if we invest in projects that seem strange or speculative compared with our existing Internet businesses. And please remember that new investments like this are very small by comparison to our core business. Art and I are excited about tackling aging and illness. These issues affect us all—from the decreased mobility and mental agility that comes with age, to life-threatening diseases that exact a terrible physical and emotional toll on individuals and families. And while this is clearly a longer-term bet, we believe we can make good progress within reasonable timescales with the right goals and the right people. Our press release has a few more details though it’s still very early days so there’s not much more to share yet. Of course when Art has something more substantial to communicate (and that will likely take time), he’ll provide an update. Finally, thanks to Bill Maris for helping bring this idea to life and getting Art involved, and to Sergey Brin for consistently supporting 10X thinking like this. It’s hard for many companies to make long term investments. So I’m tremendously excited about the innovative new way we’re funding this project. Now for the hard work! http://googlepress.blogspot.com/2013/09/calico-announcement.html http://googlepress.blogspot.com/2013/09/calico-announcement....

FD3SA 13y ago

Absolutely brilliant. Finally, Aubrey De Grey's unapologetically straightforward logic [1] regarding aging has gained traction with the crowd who has the means to tackle this grand challenge. I am sincerely proud of Page and Brin for their vision and commitment. This is one of those rare times that powerful people make bold choices that catalyze a shift in the world's thought paradigm. Aging will now be seen for what it is: the root of all chronic illness. 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMAwnA5WvLc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMAwnA5WvLc

MikeCapone 13y ago
This is great if they do take the engineering approach of SENS and Aubrey de Grey. Ideally they would partner with SENS.org since they already have a lot of the infrastructure set up.
- epicureanideal 13y ago
  Agreed. I love that mainstream companies with lots of money are getting involved though. It's nice to be ahead of the curve but it's even better when the curve catches up.
  - MikeCapone 13y ago
    Absolutely. Right now money is the bottleneck for the things that SENS is doing, so rich companies joining in are very welcome, as is the mainstream coverage that will come with them (hopefully resulting in more donations).
brd 13y ago
Ever since coming across Aubrey De Grey I've been waiting for a more mainstream adoption of his ideas. I can only hope you're right and that this announcement will incite real change in the public's opinion on age.
300bps 13y ago
catalyze a shift in the world's thought paradigm Absolutely. The goal should be to enact a vector of a new paradigm, as proactive team players synergize an out-of-the-box strategy of functionality and infotainment, re-engineering the learning curve framework of your dotted-line relationship.

throwaway172 13y ago

To what extent is this guided by the self-interest of aging tech darling CEOs (Larry Page must be in his 40s by now)? As a young person I tend to think "some of these health issues ought to be solved problems by the time I'm older." But I don't have the kind of capital to spend on it that companies like Google, or persons like Larry Page, do. Regardless of motivation, I'm happy to see investment in this domain.

mattlutze 13y ago
It's self-interest to the extent that needs be to get some traction in quality of life issues. The capital us youngins have is time and ability if not money. This is a great example of moguls and companies willing to put that resource in given an availability of the talent and ability.
turing 13y ago
Both Page and Brin turned 40 this year. There's also Brin's heightened risk of Parkinson's. His mother has it, and according to Wikipedia "both he and his mother possess a mutation of the LRRK2 gene (G2019S) that puts the likelihood of his developing Parkinson's in later years between 20 and 80%". He's donated to Parkinson's research in the past, and this investment is certainly along the same lines.
- alina24 13y ago
  Original - http://too.blogspot.com/2008/09/lrrk2.html http://too.blogspot.com/2008/09/lrrk2.html
melling 13y ago
How many diseases have we cured in the past 20 years? The past 40 years? Medical advances are really, really slow. As for the "self-interest" question (that's why you created a throw away account?), I'm sure as you get a little older, and you notice people dying who are close to your age, you might be wish that people took an interest in being self-serving a couple decades earlier. Steve Jobs, for example, had billions of dollars, had his genome sequenced, and probably tried very hard not to die so young. I bet if he had known 10 years earlier that he was going to die from pancreatic cancer, some of that money would have gone into searching for a cure. Larry Page might live a perfectly healthy life, die in his sleep at 101, out living most of us. However, if you've got that kind of money and influence, why not buy some real insurance.

hglaser 13y ago

Why is Google announcing this company? Will Google own it? Invest in it?

gvr 13y ago

This sounds super interesting. I couldn't find a site for the company; do they have one? Calico.com is registered to Oracle and there's nothing there.

MyNewAccount99 13y ago
maybe they are partnering w/ them. which makes sense. cause Larry Ellison has invested a lot in those extending life of mice competitions and in general extending life research.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ianstallings 13y ago

I for one welcome my immortal transhumanist cyborg overlords. But seriously, the fact that the first thing they do is start a corporation to control the science is not exactly comforting to me. Genentech is known for selling Avastin, their drug that fights cancer for $55k after they received harsh criticism for the proposed cost of $100k+/year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bevacizumab#Costs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bevacizumab#Costs I fear a future where "all men are created equal", but only some can afford to become immortal and others cannot. We already see some of that now. Tons of ethical questions around this topic.

netrus 13y ago
I for one fear a future where anyone can become immortal. This would result in unimaginable struggles for our ecosystem. I always feel modern medicine should focus on raising life quality for as long as we are alive, rather than extending life itself. But of course this view is painted by the large number of old people living in inhuman conditions we currently have.
- moistgorilla 13y ago
  Being immortal and having a high quality of life for as long as we are alive are not mutually exclusive. In fact, don't we have longer lives and better quality of life than our ancestors already? This would just be taking it one step further. Also, having a population that never dies has many more benefits than consequences. The amount of knowledge and experience that will not be wasted because of death is extremely valuable. Also, who says people will be giving birth to children as often as they are currently doing when they don't fear dying. Already in most developed nations the rate of population growth is plateauing. Also, don't forget we have an entire universe at our fingertips. I'm sure when we have 200 year old aerospace engineers and physicists we will be able to get to colonize other planets much faster.
  - netcan 13y ago
    Regarding quality of our ancestors: Yes, but there are downsides too. We probably have longer periods of lower quality of life. We improved both quality and length. But we improved length more. I hope for more youth, not just more life.

mrschwabe 13y ago

Apparently your internet browsing data is not enough, Google also wants your medical records and DNA. Seriously though, I wouldn't trust any company connected with Google for 'health and well being'. Their total disregard for privacy would imply they are not working in my best interest for health either.

psbp 13y ago
Did anyone read the article? This seems to be a biomedical company focused on engineering solutions to aging/illness. It's seemingly not Google Health 2.0.
- mrschwabe 13y ago
  Sure, but if their plans involve bringing said solutions to the masses - this skepticism applies. Just imagine the millions of hipsters lining up for the Google, er, Calico vaccination.
  - psbp 13y ago
    Google has a history of opening up its research. I doubt the medical community would accept a "google" vaccine without overwhelming consensus.
    - frozenport 13y ago
      The medical community has shown itself time and again to accept treatments with marginal advatnages and meciine with dubous wholistic heatlh effects (trading stroke for cancer). At the end of the day, pharmacueticals are not know for integrity.
  - rybosome 13y ago
    Hipsters like Google? I thought hipsters liked Apple...or do they just like whatever you dislike?
- VLM 13y ago
  Not necessarily opposite approaches. If they have all the data on everything I've ever purchased to eat (they probably do...) then they've probably got it on everyone and it would be interesting to produce the definitive statistical analysis of exactly how much corn syrup you have to drink over a lifetime to achieve a 50% chance of diabetes.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

gdulli 13y ago

I'd rather see a high quality of life for everyone on earth for 80 years than 150+ year life spans for the first world. Which will just further increase the footprint of the rich and divert resources from the poor. Not to mention, it's a more attainable goal. It doesn't help much to keep the body going for 50 more years if you can't also keep the brain going. I believe these are very different problems. If you can somehow solve both, it doesn't help if you can't feed and house all these people.

abstractbill 13y ago
I believe these are very different problems. Aubrey de Grey believes they are not different. If he's right, the only way you could keep people perfectly healthy up to age 80 without them living much longer would be to execute on his plan (or a similar one), and then kill people once they got old enough.
VikingCoder 13y ago
You either believe in capitalism, or you don't. Google believes in capitalism. They will offer goods and services to people who can afford them, and they will also work to make their products more accessible to those with limited resources. I personally believe Android will have enormous long-lasting positive impacts on the rest of the world. A $25 smartphone ... A $10 smartphone... A $5 smartphone... Giving access to instant communication, and huge amounts of information, will in the long run dramatically improve human lives. My personal opinion.
- jbooth 13y ago
  I also disagree with the parent poster but you absolutely do not either "believe in capitalism, or you don't". The only pure capitalist societies are anarchist hellholes. Among nice societies, capitalism is implemented all sorts of different ways with the things capitalism does poorly[1] papered over in different ways. [1] law enforcement, basic standard of living for all, various economic regulations to address market failures, e.g. I can't legally plug in a transmitter at 100MHz and 1000 watts and black out WNBC in my neighborhood, and can't sell capitalist let-the-market-decide food out of a roach den

waterlesscloud 13y ago

"So I’m tremendously excited about the innovative new way we’re funding this project" What does that refer to?

notatoad 13y ago
from the Time article[1], although they don't say it explicitly i get the impression that they're going to run it essentially like a charity - just dump money on it, and not expect any financial return. [1] http://business.time.com/2013/09/18/google-extend-human-life/ http://business.time.com/2013/09/18/google-extend-human-life...
- gesman 13y ago
  ...or ANY return.
- julespitt 13y ago
  Peculiar it isn't just set up as a charity then. Although perhaps Larry Page just wants to avoid the strange vagaries of non-profit governance, if I were to guess why.
  - notatoad 13y ago
    setting it up as a charity causes trouble if they want to start collecting profits down the road. non-profits don't get to become for-profit as soon as they build something profitable.

orky56 13y ago

Not surprised in the least that Page referenced Bill Marris for "bringing this idea to life." Marris has been pivotal in taking Google beyond its traditional role with this and Google Ventures. He has recognized and successfully utilized Google's resources to push Google to its full potential and reshape what Google stands for. Very excited to see what happens with Calico and Marris' next achievements.

siljrath 13y ago

yup. valid cncerns, good comments. bring on some more michael tellinger -ism, then we can have a bit more peace of mind about the aubrey de gray -ism, when it's not part of that capitalist, corporatist, monopolist-wannabe paradigm. could be great tho. (love the comment: rising tide floats all boats)

crassus 13y ago

This is a great first step. But realistically they can only move so fast with FDA regulation increasing your iteration cycle time on therapies to 10 years. Our biomedical regulatory regime is extremely risk averse. If we had a regime where anyone could voluntarily place any therapy into their own body, we'd move a lot faster. Yes, a few more people would die in testing. But a lot more lives would be saved by the therapies produced.

diydsp 13y ago
Not only would more die in testing, but more would die in everyday use and results would be so mixed you could hardly get any information out of the experiments. One of my biggest clients is in the medical device industry. From the surface appearance, any company could make a simulacrum of their main products with perhaps 90% cost-cutting... but life-saving devices are not like inferior iPods or graphic designs. It's not just things like a crappy user interface, poorer display quality and periodic crashes interrupting your musical flow you would have to deal with if any New Jack could make medical devices, but infection, worsened health, extraneous visits to doctors, untraceable health conditions, lack of accountability by your doctor and yes, death through everyday use, etc. After hearing conservative cheapskates bitch about wasted expenses of FDA regulation and liberals bitch about "how easy it is to walk around the FDA," I have come to fully doubt both (read: realize how much they're talking out of their ani) and respect the FDA after working in such close vicinity to them. And anyway, yes anyone can voluntarily place any therapy in your body- you just can't get a corporation to help you with it in the U.S.
paul 13y ago
Medical tourism partially solves this. If someone develops an amazing treatment I need, I wouldn't mind traveling to another country to get it.
canvia 13y ago
The root cause is sociopathic control freaks who think they know best, and want to tell other people what to do. It's the reason why so many victimless crimes are punishable with prison time. You can't dictate morality. Preventing someone from doing whatever they please with their body is what is truly immoral, society just needs to realize that.

frozenport 13y ago

With all that Google knows about you, they might as well have a clone ready when you die!

VLM 13y ago
Unless you're about 95 years old today, GOOG will probably shutter the service before you die. They already went thru one iteration of electronic medical record, which is too bad because it sounded interesting but the first time I heard about it was on a READER feed as it was being shutdown. Before READER shut down of course.

saucetenuto 13y ago

So now we know what Steve Yegge was talking about, when he said he was moving to some mysterious "making peoples' lives better" project. Cool.

robomartin 13y ago

This is potentially great news. The funny thing is that the first thing that crossed my mind is a book I read many years ago: Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition. http://www.amazon.com/Great-Mambo-Chicken-Transhuman-Condition/dp/0201567512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379525359&sr=8-1&keywords=great+mambo+chicken http://www.amazon.com/Great-Mambo-Chicken-Transhuman-Conditi...

rottyguy 13y ago

A potential side-effect to this company would be googles technology expertise married to the biotech/pharma? world. We often hear that this drug cost billions to manufacture and therefore we need to recoup our costs through it's sales. Perhaps we see less expensive drugs as a result during this journey. That would be a huge win IMO.

rhizome 13y ago

This is a fairly predictable feel-good initiative after being hammered on their involvement in NSA matters.

bsullivan01 13y ago

Great, but will wait till something cool comes out of it, or when they shut it down. Right now that's all I can say with the info given. But yeah, Google has managed to suck the oxygen out of others with every new announcement (self-driving cars are one example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#History )

gefh 13y ago
Tesla, Mercedes, and others are all working _harder_ on self driving cars now.
- bsullivan01 13y ago
  Who's getting virtually all the press? That was my point
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

JonFish85 13y ago

Ok, I'll bite: what is the over/under on when this will be shut down like so many other Google projects? (Question is only half-serious)

notatoad 13y ago
it will be shut down when management decides it no longer has a chance of being successful. if it is successful, it will not be shut down. stop getting emotionally attached to google products. they aren't your children.
- JonFish85 13y ago
  Yikes, that's a little harsh. I don't really care about any of the products they've shut down, it was just a tongue-in-cheek observation that I find curious. I use Google search, calendar & gmail. If they shut those down, I'd be sad. Otherwise I don't really care much.
  - notatoad 13y ago
    if you cared as little as you are pretending to, you wouldn't feel a need to whine about it. every single article relating to anything google, there's a bunch of you down at the bottom of the comments section whining about google shutting down failing products. get over it, or at least shut up about it. it's not funny, it's just pathetic. google is a company, they shut down products when they aren't working out. that's how companies work.

bowlofpetunias 13y ago

Most of the world suffers from the health problem of never even reaching a ripe old age, and much of the rest from the problem of not being able to afford it, and increasingly so. This is not about making the world a better place. This about allowing the elite that can afford it to live forever.

astrodust 13y ago
Plus the one thing Google doesn't have access to at the moment is your medical records. I guess this fixes that.
- anfedorov 13y ago
  They used to have a service for exactly that: http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/health/about/ http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/health/about/
  - specialist 13y ago
    I worked for a startup in the electronic medical records space. Data interchange. We had various interactions with both the Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault teams. They were both making patient facing apps, ours was physician (and staff) facing. We had a patient facing app, because all the hospitals thought it'd drive admissions. But at the time no doctor would trust patient's data. To the best of my knowledge, that hasn't changed (five years on). The "quantified self" movement may change the perception of patient gathered data. When data collection is automatic, standardized. More importantly, when doctors are doing it for themselves, so are familiar with the tools and culture. So, in short, Google Health and MS HealthVault were just wishful thinking. There was no "there" there.
- cookingrobot 13y ago
  Calico is a different company, so if some day you decide to give them access to your medical records, that won't automatically give access to google.

ape4 13y ago

Self driving cars would be good for old folks.

nova 13y ago

Well, deathism going out of fashion with one of the biggest technological companies of the world can only be good. This is the greatest news I've heard in a long time and even if it ends up in nothing the attitude alone is commendable.

ilbe 13y ago

Fine, but, I would say that before one jumps into whatever treatments will be offered, given capable legs, they must first walk and ride a bike more.

gesman 13y ago

No wonder my health and personal development related site dropped from the first page of Google to nowhere. Replaced by bunch of Youtube links and wikipedia. Google is getting into conflict-of-interest endeavors.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

So basically, Google are now openly admitting that they're trying to take over the world.

mcv 13y ago
Not so much "taking over" as "being given in exchange for eternal life". They know how to make any deal attractive.

brownBananas 13y ago

Not going to lie, I read the first two lines, stopped, opened a new tab, and searched for Calico. Then came back and read the rest of the post.

vacri 13y ago
I really wish tech companies would stop naming themselves after things that already exist. It just pollutes the search space, and there are plenty of nonce words out there that sound cool.

kafkaesque 13y ago

Have to put on my tin foil hat for this. NSA-related, too, so you're warned. This makes me wonder just how much Google works with the US government. I'm not saying the result of whatever Calico wants or will do (because it's all pretty vague right now) is a negative. But Calico seems to come at a time when Obama is pushing for universal health care, which will be a huge industry. Last I heard, it was estimated at $1.1 trillion. It just feels like the US has a tendency to take something good (universal health care), and make it into something bad ("We will use this to profile/monitor every US citizen").

StavrosK 13y ago
Oh wow... That's... a pretty big leap.
- kafkaesque 13y ago
  It is. I'm still excited for the details on Calico. It was just a thought that crossed my mind.
cromwellian 13y ago
Healthcare is based on science, and science requires data processing to see the correlations. We'd probably be able to spot a lot more common causes of diseases if people weren't so guarded with their medical history. This doesn't really have anything to do with government, it has to do with solving problems. The US already has HIPAA, so I don't get the point. This just seems like a weak attempt to say something negative about Google's announcement.
- kafkaesque 13y ago
  Medical history is a double-edged sword in the US. Why do you think people are so reluctant to share it when they are being judged, charged more, charged less, etc. depending on it? If this weren't the case, some Americans wouldn't have a problem with 'divulging' their medical history. Health care is based on science, you're right, but there are factors that influence what is researched and where funds go. Plus, putting it in practice or implementing it according to the right policy; this is another issue.[1] Also, I think you're undermining the magnitude of lobbying. But Google is a huge company, with a lot of power and capital. So, like I said in response to someone else, I am very interested in the details of Calico. [1] http://billmoyers.com/2013/05/18/blinding-us-from-science/ http://billmoyers.com/2013/05/18/blinding-us-from-science/

PeterisP 13y ago

An interesting trend is that we're now no longer relying on governments to pursue big, hairy, audacious goals. Governments and also capital markets nowadays seem unable to pursue any really long-term projects at all. Instead, all the future-advancing progress seems to be made by independently rich individuals; and also not by the "aristocratic-rich" families, but by noveau riche upstarts such as Brin, Musk and others. What does it say about our current, traditional institutions if they seem unable to do that? Are they broken, and can they be fixed somehow?

FrojoS 13y ago
There might be a trend, yes, but we are still almost entirely relying on government funded research. So much that it will stay this way for a very long time. Have you compared say the US health care budget with say the funding of the Gates foundation.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
Our research institutions are not broken. They are actively defunded, disabled, and handcuffed by an elite class who would rather return to the days of aristocratic decision-making than subject themselves to democracy.
Eliezer 13y ago
In the depths of the Great Stagnation, all significant technological progress occurs due to ascended post-exit Silicon Valley moguls personally funding it (with money they own or fully control) out of the goodness of their own hearts. Venture capitalists can't see how to flip it in 3 years and science bureaucrats can only give money to other bureaucrats.

joering2 13y ago

Disclaimer: I do not hate Google; I use their search and email daily. I hate to be this guy, but... > OK so you’re probably thinking wow! That’s a lot different from what Google does today. Not really. Google is in a business of selling ads. In addition, they do make money on selling/sharing/exchanging information, mostly indirectly. > But as we explained in our first letter to shareholders, there’s tremendous potential for technology more generally to improve people’s lives. .. and shareholders did not care about that. If you own shares of a hospital chain then you may care. But when you hold shares of Subway, Coca-Cola or Google, in those particular markets you care less about people's lives. You care about bottom line. > So don’t be surprised if we invest in projects that seem strange or speculative compared with our existing Internet businesses. We are not surprised. But since you sun-setting pretty good, useful projects like Google Reader, and you taking Jobs advice of "stay focus on only couple [most profitable] projects at the time", we ask: "where is the catch and how you gonna make money _otherwise_ than selling info or exchanging it?" Just recently I have cancelled my 23andme kit (they gave me some hardtime though and never fully recovered the fee (taking legal action is simply not worth the $)), because after doing some research I found it that 23&me owner is family with Brin. There is no chance in this world you will tell me Google will not try to make money off of my DNA this or another way) http://www.crunchbase.com/company/23andme http://www.crunchbase.com/company/23andme

cromwellian 13y ago
Guilty-by-association and paranoia. Check. (23andme is not owned by Google and I'm pretty sure their T&S/privacy policy and HIPAA cover what can be done with your personal records) Obligatory and irrelevant Google Reader reference. Check. Right, the world would be better off if Google spent more time investing in yet more social sharing web app features, and not on reducing high way fatalities or increasing health. Missing. No mention of PRISM.
- brymaster 13y ago
  Googler drunk on company koolaid. Check.
  - 13y ago

taigeair 13y ago

is there a website for this?

blahbl4hblah 13y ago

Jesus. Every now and then Google trots out some hair brained bullshit that everyone just eats up with a spoon. They throw some money at some crazy idea that makes everyone giggle and goes back to tracking your web searches. THEY SELL ADVERTISING. This is a type of advertising where they convince people they are some benevolent company that's really looking out for you. Jesus.

ph0rque 13y ago

Someone should write a short story (Doctorow, perhaps?) of a supercentenarian baby-boomer who is woken from a coma to suddenly find himself unwillingly young again, and explore the moral ramifications.

Techowl 13y ago

There are a lot of ethical arguments happening in this thread, and I'm concerned that most of them are missing the point. They tend to center on the idea that these technologies will help the wealthy, while leaving most of the world to suffer. I'd love to see Google work on initiatives to give the world's poor access to clean water and basic healthcare. Those are awesome causes -- maybe the world's most awesome. But if we categorize pressing third-world health issues as the World's Most Awesome Cause, well, aren't age-related diseases the World's Second Most Awesome Cause? We should for sure allocate more resources to the World's Most Awesome Cause. But why are people attacking funding for the World's Second Most Awesome Cause? Convince people not to buy top-tier smartphones, or expensive cars, or big houses, and donate to charity instead. But don't try to convince people to die of heart disease. Even if this new Google initiative isn't the absolutely most optimal way to spend money to serve humanity, it's pretty high up on the list. Please remember that about two-thirds of all deaths world-wide are caused by aging [1]. It isn't just the elite who are getting heart attacks, and long-term, I'd be shocked if it were only the elite who were receiving effective treatments to prevent them. 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate Edit: formatting.

antirez 13y ago

Cool, however while waiting for their results, please eat healthy, do a lot of gym, lift heavy weight and become stronger.

tomw1808 13y ago

Wow, sounds like Monsanto for Nerds.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Wow, sounds like Monsanto for Nerds. Its more like Genentech (at least in focal domain) than Monsanto, but "Genentech for Nerds" would be still just be Genentech -- who, incidentally, shares its Chairman with Calico.

kaws 13y ago

Wow! This reminds me of a comment I saw on HN, or maybe it was a blog post about either Google's Project Loon, or Google Glass. I can't seem to find a link or the actual author, but they essentially said: "What I care about is that Google has become a machine that turns advertising dollars into fundamentally groundbreaking new projects like Google Glass, Project Loon, and self-driving cars. They’re not just trying to make money: they’re trying to use that money on far-fetched moon-shot projects with the chance to be genuinely revolutionary. I admire that." Now they are investing in a new realm where they are "excited about tackling aging and illness." Google's ambition, and vision is inspiring! Hopefully we see some innovation in this sector from this investment.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

BrainInAJar 13y ago

*Google announces Calico, a new company that will harvest your private medical data in to the Google panopticon, in order to sell you to advertisers.

cookingrobot 13y ago
If they wanted your health data they'd just make this a new google service. By making it a new seperate company they've gone out of their way to ensure they don't have access to that data.

Legogris 13y ago

Am I the only one seeing the obvious connection between this, Google's general business model and technologies and the recruitment of Ray Kurzweil as Director of Engineering? If and when we realize the singularity is a real possibility, Google will have the platform ready. For better or worse.

product50 13y ago

Meanwhile Microsoft gives $40B back to shareholders.

narrator 13y ago

The low budget open source version of this is going on over at longecity.org

kinnth 13y ago

What a ploy! It's so that you will search more throughout your life time! Cunning buggers! :D

znowi 13y ago

Fountain of youth for the rich. This is a lot more profitable than selling ads on the net :)

X4 13y ago

human subject a892857 identified with probability to get hit by bus -> starting assisnation drone to increase efficiency. Art Levinson, Chairman and former CEO of Genentech and Chairman of Apple, will be Chief Execution Officer. The fact they open Calic makes me hate them. They could have gone in every sector, but not in the one that is there to actually improve our life. They will algorithmically help kill much more people efficiently. Money powers the healthchare system.

tassl 13y ago

I have always been interested on life-extension with a focus on healthy life. My background is mainly engineering (computer science, mechanical engineering) with focus on machine learning and statistics. I was thinking on taking some graduate program that would help the transition in this kind of companies; does anybody knows a university/program that would help? I have checked some graduate bioinformatics, but I am not sure what would be more helpful in the long term. Any idea/suggestion?

Lost_BiomedE 13y ago
In the current environment, if you already have an engineering undergrad, an MBA would do you best. I am not a fan of the programs, but the degree will open doors that are mostly shut for pure engineers. In many areas and locals, not necessarily Silicon Valley, a pure engineering man is seen as a lackey. An engineer with business cred is considered valuable, just my experience.
- tassl 13y ago
  Thanks for your answer! I guess I would have to be more precise :) My intent is to have a technical role in the space, not a management one. I can imagine how most of the problems facing require machine learning and statistics, so I am more interested on how to complement these skills to be able to transition into an space that fascinates me.
  - Lost_BiomedE 13y ago
    Depends. In a mid-sized company, they expect senior/VP technical lead to have something like an MBA. In a small start-up, founders are generally required to be able to navigate both sides a bit. I would really consider it. You can learn what you want on the technical side outside of college. Now, if you want to be in a research institution or academia, you don't need the MBA, but then there is the whole can of worms of how to gain influence enough to do the research you want.

rodly 13y ago

Call me crazy here guys, but what exactly will Calico produce/make/do/etc? The top comment makes me feel like I'm missing a magical paragraph in the OP that details their cure for death, ugliness and stupidity.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Call me crazy here guys, but what exactly will Calico produce/make/do/etc? Presumably, its going to do research (probably secondary with an aim to commercialization, rather than basic research) on health problems, particularly on aging and aging-related diseases. > The top comment makes me feel like I'm missing a magical paragraph in the OP that details their cure for death, ugliness and stupidity. Its not a startup looking for venture capital that needs to demonstrate an MVP to attract investors in the near term, its a project that's already funded by Google as a small (by comparison to Google's available resources), effort. Efforts like that don't need to have a product on day one, they need a mission.

melange 13y ago

I wonder why they chose today to announce this.

sachdevap 13y ago

Pop the Google pill and get a healthy life, with some ads on your arms and back.

nomoral 13y ago

people, aging is not a bug, its a feature!

pjscott 13y ago
I don't want it to happen, and it sucks. Call it a bug, or call it a feature, but remember that what you call it doesn't make it any more desirable.

zmmmmm 13y ago

Weird thing for Page to say: > So I’m tremendously excited about the innovative new way we’re funding this project Are they doing something other than just dumping money into it, siphoned from their core business? Or am I reading this wrong?

ghostdiver 13y ago

CPC in AdWords will skyrocket on Calcio pages and in SERPS overall, the price of SEO in health* niche will also be very high, because as I guess Google will use SERPs to promote their new business.

sunseb 13y ago

We are close to immortality, but we are also close to self-extinction. Isn't that fascinating ?

mehuldesai 13y ago

Typical of the billionaires. Is the aging funding for society or there own motality. Ellison does stuff like this. I didn't read the article fully but on the surface they would be better doing as Gates is doing, funding suffering. Funding their own future to me is not very honorable and respectful.

creativestar 13y ago

http://www.starcom.com.pk http://www.starcom.com.pk Star Communication Services (STARCOM) is a market leading System Integrator and Distributor Company with the proven reputation as Network specialists.

outside1234 13y ago

Google sure has a short memory: http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/health/about/ http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/health/about/

_pferreir_ 13y ago

Why not targeting something like this instead? http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jun/13/antibiotics-crisis-already-happening http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jun/13/antibiotics-c... I think it will be much more of a problem in the long term than aging (pun not intended).

tarwatirno 13y ago

To the people who are saying that this will only be for the rich: I would like to point out that we already spend over $500 billion on Medicare. In other words we already spend 10 times Google's yearly revenue, half-assedly patching up the symptoms of the disease that every single human is already afflicted with, and we do it for everyone. If they actually solve this problem, it won't go only to rich people, because of the amount of money that buying it for everyone will save everyone. (Yes, some problems might come in if they invent something that can keep you young if you start at 30, but doesn't do anything if you start at 65, however the long term benefit would still be amazing and maybe make the Republicans' dream of getting rid of Medicare finally come true...) To the people who say death is natural: Many, many natural things are bad (high child mortality, smallpox, etc.) and many artificial things are good (antibiotics, vaccines, the computer letting you read this comment.) Naturalistic Fallacy. To the people who say death is good: No it's not. My parents had me when they were older. Now my dad has a kind of cancer that is associated with aging (multiple myeloma.) He was diagnosed my first year of college (luckily he has been doing rather well considering for five years now.) I get to look forward to loosing him before I turn 30. I don't care why you think death is great because of its benefit to society; I don't want to loose my dad. Also, my kids will almost certainly never know their grandfather, just like I never knew mine (He died of the same kind of cancer a few months before I was born,) which is sad. You are severely underestimating the value of not having to watch people you care about shrivel up before your eyes and be irrevocably destroyed, knowing that there is nothing you can do to stop it.