
Calico, Google’s Anti-Aging Company, Announces New Research Facility - dnetesn
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/googles-anti-aging-company-announces-new-research-facility/?ref=technology
======
exratione
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.

~~~
ajcarpy2005
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.

------
flohofwoe
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](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 ;)

~~~
TeMPOraL
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.

~~~
flohofwoe
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).

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _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)._

We might need to settle for a middle ground. Like for many other advances we
had, we need rich to bankroll the R&D that will later lead to technology being
available for rest. How to prevent it from turning into dystopia is another
discussion.

> _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._

It might serve a goal, but this is not _our_ goal. Evolution may "value"
inclusive fitness and death is its engine, but _humans_ do not care about
passing genes, they care about love, fun, intellectual growth, a good life.
The process of evolution is not something we value.

------
fizixer
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/](http://carcinisation.com/2014/07/13/an-anti-deathist-f-a-q/)

------
refurb
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.

~~~
evv
> 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?

~~~
refurb
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.

~~~
TeMPOraL
We need both. We already live long enough to see that if you clocked too many
years, either your heart will shut down or you will get cancer and die anyway.

The ability to stop aging process might still end up somewhat limited by
cancer, so both goals seem to be tightly connected.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
But is cancer as inexorable as aging? Nobody is going to live past 100 due to
cellular degradation. What is the actual mortality from cancer?

I read once that if we didn't get old, death due to accidents would make the
mean lifetime 800 years. I wonder what cancer does to that figure.

------
sebastianavina
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

~~~
TeMPOraL
Wait for his TED2023 talk ;).

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

------
eli_gottlieb
Right, where can I invest?

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

------
biomimic
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://humanlongevity.com)
[http://genopharmix.com](http://genopharmix.com)
[http://www.sens.org](http://www.sens.org) and
[http://buckinstitute.org](http://buckinstitute.org) come into to play.

~~~
radiorental
"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](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?

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

~~~
astazangasta
What resources? There's not much useful water out there, let alone breathable
air, carbon, organic matter, living things, ecosystems. All of those crucial
resources are here.

Besides, if we don't get things straight on this planet, we'll never be able
to survive long enough to find another one.

~~~
lotsofmangos
_What resources?_

[http://www.planetaryresources.com/asteroids/composition/](http://www.planetaryresources.com/asteroids/composition/)

 _Besides, if we don 't get things straight on this planet, we'll never be
able to survive long enough to find another one._

Survival is an argument for getting a lot of people living off planet, not an
argument for not doing so. We can try and create utopias as much as we like,
but that is not going to help very much when we get hit by a big rock.

Also, personally I suspect that the real advance is not going to be in
settling other planets, but building habitats out of asteroids.

