Calico, Google’s Anti-Aging Company, Announces New Research Facility

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/googles-anti-aging-company-announces-new-research-facility/?ref=technology

by dnetesn • 12 years ago

112 60 12 years ago

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

exratione• 12 years ago

This is another point of reinforcement for my view that this effort is going to look much like a mix of the Ellison Medical Foundation plus Sirtris: vastly expensive and with little other than knowledge to show for it once investors give up, because the researchers are from the outset trying to do something that is very hard, and which even if achieved will produce only small benefits. (Which is to say carry on trying to make drug candidates like Rapamycin do something useful enough to become a clinical treatment, bashing the square pegs at hand into the circular holes of regulation and clinical benefit).

"The AbbVie partnership seemingly makes it clear that Calico will be a drug discovery and development company, which is what many observers expected based on Mr. Levinson’s background in drug development."

In the best scenario, five years of this will raise the water level enough for more meaningful approaches than calorie restriction mimetics, autophagy inducers, and other attempts at slow-aging drugs that have consumed billions to date with nothing to show for it, to raise significant funds themselves. In the worst scenario, it burns investors for a decade on the whole topic.

It is a real time of choice and opportunity at the present. The lumbering monolith of mainstream research can continue to pursue things like Human Longevity Inc and rapamycin derivatives that are probably going to be profitable yet achieve next to no useful gain of human life span (because again they are doing hard things that can only achieve small benefits at best) or, hopefully, some form of disruption for a better path will overtake enough of the community to make a difference.

It is clear that far from everyone in the research community thinks that old school drug discovery, farming the natural world to take potshots at restructuring metabolism so as to work slightly better when damaged by age (without in any way fixing the underlying damage!) is the smart way forward. There is SENS, there are the European researchers behind the Hallmarks of Aging manifesto, there are some of the Russian contingent with novel ideas. The near future doesn't have to be an enormous waste of time and money that will go nowhere but to generate voluminous databases, entirely bypassing any realistic opportunity for achieving actual rejuvenation and repair of the causes of aging. But I fear that it will, based on what we're seeing the big money do.

epicureanideal• 12 years ago

I have very similar concerns. Thanks for taking the time to write this comment. Yes, I really don't understand why the super-wealthy don't allocate some tiny slice of their wealth toward doing science differently. I stumbled across an article recently about the Flexner Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report) which would be a great model for someone to apply to our broken process of scientific research.

ajcarpy2005• 12 years ago

Don't forget Telomerase-restoration and protection factors. And don't underestimate the reverse-correlation of nutrition and mortality age. It's definitely statistically significant.

refurb3• 12 years ago

Calico has done a good job of keeping out of the press, so I'm happy to see more details. I'm somewhat surprised by the partnership with Abbvie, who is widely known as an "old school pharma company", not exactly a bastion of innovative thinking and risk taking.

Also, the focus on age-related diseases is an interesting one. Originally Calico was sold as a "fighting old age" company. That's vastly different than "fighting diseases associated with old age". At the same time, targeting age-related diseases is much easier than fighting aging itself.

epistasis• 12 years ago

Good job at keeping out of the press? For an age research facility, it's been in the press a prodigious amount! You probably don't even know about other age research!

refurb3• 12 years ago

Meh... when did we first hear of the company? A year ago? How much more do we know now than then?

I guess my comment is referring to not staying out of the press, but more keeping the details under wrap.

evv• 12 years ago

Originally Calico was sold as a "fighting old age" company. That's vastly different than "fighting diseases associated with old age".

The difference isn't really clear to me. Could you elaborate?

refurb3• 12 years ago

I guess I think of it this way:

"fighting old age" - attempting to stop the aging process itself (i.e. longevity)

"fighting old age diseases" - looking to cure diseases associated with old age (i.e. treating a specific condition)

In the second example you could be treating a disease, but not having any impact on the aging process itself.

toufka• 12 years ago

The process is entirely different. Old-school drug companies have a very formulaic approach: 1) find lucrative disease, 2) find small molecule that abates disease, 3) get it through FDA, 4) market & sell.

A much more modern approach is to figure out what kills people (heart disease, atherosclerosis, muscular & neural degeneration, loss of immune system) and fix that. Build a new immune system, figure out how to 'plumb' one's blood vessels, or '3d-print' new ones. Stem-cell & regenerative medicine can make new, and sometimes even improved, organs.

The technologies of the second kind were only fanciful pipe-dreams 30 years ago when the old-school pharma companies came about. And a few still are today. But many are not. We can actually do meaningful research into designing these complex tissues today that would entirely obviate the old way pharma does business.

As someone who does tissue engineering & synthetic biology it's a bit telling to see big money come in from a different field and latch onto old-school 'names' rather than new-school 'ideas'. Calico really could be something truly spectacular - but it has to be careful who it sets at its helm...

nathannecro• 12 years ago

I can see why.

Perhaps the most significant problem associated with aging is centered around our body's replication system. The way that cells duplicate and grow is not perfect. Hosts of environmental, biological, and "pure luck" factors all combine against us in a slow, but inevitable warping of our genetics.

In addition to genetic decay, our biological parts get "worn out" over time. Valves close with less force and vessels become inelastic. Our stretchy bits - tendons, ligaments - become scarred with micro-tears over time causing decreased flexibility. Our squishier bits - our inner organs and muscle - tend to become less efficient over time and decay sets in (a rule of thumb is past the age of 30, the average human loses 1% of muscle mass per year). Our squishy-stretchy bits - fascia - tend to lose the fight to gravity as the cells become less and less "sticky" and the skin on our faces droop.

As one ages, the mistakes in replication, the decay of our organic bodies begin to add up. As they pile on year after year, the likelihood of getting "sick" increases. Alzheimer's - thought to be brought about by tissue decay and subsequent scarring in the brain. Infarctions (a loss of blood supply, thus a loss of nutrients and oxygen) to a certain part of the body (heart attacks are a common result of cardiac-related infarctions) - can be caused by a stiffening of the walls of blood vessels which lets plaque build up and eventually, when some plaque is dislodged, that plaque might get trapped in a smaller vessel and cause a lethal blockage. Edema (excess fluid building up in tissue) - generally as a result of the weakening of the heart (the heart is a muscle which gets weaker over time) and the decay of the vessels and the muscles surrounding the vessels. And so on and so forth.

Fighting old age tends to be thought of as fighting the underlying physical and genetic decay the geriatric (or just aging in general) undergo. Reversing old age, in a similar manner, tends to focus around the prevention or the reversal of that decay. Fighting diseases associated with old age thus is far more limited in scope. While the end result of "fighting old age" might eliminate certain diseases, "fighting diseases associated with old age" will never prevent people from getting old.

biomimic10• 12 years ago

The largest impact in the history of humankind will be made by those companies that work to extend human lifespan. Good to see how this whole race to increase lifespan can change Silicon Valley, moving it once again toward true innovation, truly changing the world, while other companies like Craig Ventor's http://humanlongevity.com http://genopharmix.com http://www.sens.org and http://buckinstitute.org come into to play.

baddox• 12 years ago

I would say that lifespan lengthening is in the top tier of impactful technologies, but I think there are three equals in the top tier: strong AI, nanotech, and biotech. Of course, all of these four are quite intertwined, with some being enabled or perhaps even prevented by progress in another.

biomimic10• 12 years ago

We need more time.

TeMPOraL14• 12 years ago

I tend to group biotech and nanotech together. Because essentially, what is life made of if not nanotechnology that is not ours, and we don't yet know how to control? The simplest way to build our own nanomachines is to start with tweaking the ones we already have around us.

radiorental• 12 years ago

"The largest impact in the history of humankind will be made by those companies that work to extend human lifespan."

True but I feel for the wrong reasons. To my mind, the single greatest challenge our species has faced in our brief history on this planet is how we minimize our impact on the finite resources available to us.

Researchers recently reexamined the predictions made in the 1970's book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth and found the models are holding true.

The elephant in the room is how do we curb population growth in a meaningful and humane way. What's the point of extending life if there's a diminishing return experientially?

sp3000• 12 years ago

I get frustrated when people bring up Malthusian catastrophe to denigrate the real and important work that scientists are doing in the field of human longevity. Population growth curbs itself as nations become more economically stable. Over population is not a global problem, but rather a regional one.

Even Bill Gates has written about this, more recently in his 2014 Gates letter, but also in the following essay, criticizing the doom and gloom predicted by books like The Population Bomb and Limits to Growth.

http://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/The-Bet

biomimic10• 12 years ago

Lifespan solves for this. If people knew they would be living long enough to experience what future generations would have to experience in terms of environmental impact, many would take on a different viewpoint toward climate issues as opposed to the "let them deal with it, I ain't gonna be alive anyway" approach.

In terms of population control, it's all about lifespan combined with more efficient discovery as fewer ideas would die with those moving them forward. Space travel will solve for moving the human race to further inhabitable planets, but not without a solution for the more important lifespan issue which is a requirement for extended space travel. We've got 4 billion years before our sun runs out and before the Andromeda galaxy will cause us a bit of trouble.

4 billion years from now, lets at least be known as the generation that began to make an impact in this area.

TeMPOraL14• 12 years ago

The elephant in the room is how do we curb population growth in a meaningful and humane way.

Or, how to switch to sustainable means of energy production to secure comfortable level of life for increasing population.

It's a bit of an hammer and anvil situation - on one hand, achieving sustainability will most likely require getting rid of capitalistic economy and basically tearing the whole system apart and reassembling it into something different. On the other hand, you wouldn't want to be the one denied the right to live and/or reproduce, and allowing for this will open a huge another can of worms.

lotsofmangos4• 12 years ago

Why not just get off the planet? The resources available above our heads are vast.

Brakenshire2• 12 years ago

If people live longer and the fertility rate stays the same, it's an interesting question about what effect that would have on the population - if you have children at 30-40, and live until 100 rather than until 70, you're certainly not getting any exponential growth pattern as a result.

spindritf• 12 years ago

Researchers recently reexamined the predictions made in the 1970's book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth and found the models are holding true.

The models for upcoming bearpocalypse also hold true. Better stock up on bear traps.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/03/the-guardian-vs-inducti...

fizixer2• 12 years ago

To my mind, the single greatest challenge our species has faced in our brief history on this planet is how we minimize our impact on the finite resources available to us.

Despite that this doesn't look the greatest challenge to my mind, conquering aging and death might actually help rather then hinder meeting it.

I think it's safe to say that 'think of your children' has proved to be less effective a slogan and we might as well try 'think of yourself 100 years down the road'.

sebastianavina• 12 years ago

this is exactly the plot for an action movie. big-rich guy, funds anti aging company in order to be inmortal...

anyway. nice work google

TeMPOraL14• 12 years ago

Wait for his TED2023 talk ;).

( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2BxH-xwc9M )

baconstrp• 12 years ago

where the first wave of zombies will eventually crawl out. JK :)

flohofwoe2• 12 years ago

This sounds like emperor Chin's quest for immortality to me, e.g. pure hubris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang#Elixir_of_Life). I'm really not looking forward to a world where a few rich and powerful old geezers are cementing their power through being virtually immortal (think of a mix of Kim Jon-un or Fidel Castro, but in a corporate setting like the russian oligarchs). The youth and new ideas will be subtly supressed by the 'better arguments and wisdom' of the elder. It would make a good dystopian science-fiction book though ;)

irremediable2• 12 years ago

I partially share your views, but, if you've not already, I'd highly recommend watching one of Aubrey de Grey's talks on the subject. He offers a very different viewpoint, which made me reconsider my thoughts on radical life extension.

TeMPOraL14• 12 years ago

As a member of the tl;dr culture, who is too lazy to Google for them himself, I want to ask if you could link the ones you find most interesting/relevant?

TeMPOraL14• 12 years ago

One man's hubris is another's refusal to keep being bullied by nature. I don't see anything bad with wanting to live longer. I don't see anything bad with fighting the "natural state of things" to achieve it. It's sad that throughout history, most humans are just willing to lie down and die.

Preventing it from turning into dystopia is another matter though, well worth of discussing.

shiven• 12 years ago

One man's hubris is another's refusal to keep being bullied by other humans.

It's sad that throughout history, most humans are just willing to let fellow humans lie down and die at the hands of a powerful few.

flohofwoe2• 12 years ago

Well to be a bit more clear: Enabling everyone to reach an old age by fighting diseases is an honorable and good goal (as long as this is available to everybody and not just those few with deep pockets). But on the other hand, I'm sure that death serves a goal as well. It is not a "problem", but very likely a solution to evolve the species. We should first aim for our 'granted' 120 years life span. I think if we are a very long living species, we will also become a very slowly evolving, very conservative species. I'm also afraid that we cannot know the longterm consequences (sort of like the Soviet project to irrigate the Karakum desert, which resulted in the death of Lake Aral half a century later).

JoeAltmaier3• 12 years ago

Yeah with immortality will come changes. Folks likely to become very, very conservative if they have not decades but centuries at risk. Imprisonment for traffic tickets; voting age increased to 100 or more; heck just the change in the interest rate would rock the economy!

eli_gottlieb• 12 years ago

Right, where can I invest?

fizixer2• 12 years ago

In case some people are on the fence about the whole idea or have questions:

The Anti-Deathist FAQ: http://carcinisation.com/2014/07/13/an-anti-deathist-f-a-q/

Calico, Google’s Anti-Aging Company, Announces New Research Facility

Related Stories