Google Tackles Health

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday September 18, 2013 @07:40AM from the as-long-as-you-don't-mind-having-sponsored-cells dept.

Google has announced the formation of a new company called Calico, which aims to promote health and fight aging. Larry Page said, "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." He expanded upon this in an interview with Time: "I'm not proposing that we spend all of our money on those kinds of speculative things. But we should be spending a commensurate amount with what normal types of companies spend on research and development, and spend it on things that are a little more long-term and a little more ambitious than people normally would. More like moon shots." The new company's CEO will be Arthur Levinson, who is currently the chairman of Apple and biotech company Genentech. Apple CEO Tim Cook 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."

23 of 115 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Logan's Run by Infestedkudzu · 2013-09-18 07:45 · Score: 2

Are they trying to keep everyone 23 years old so they don't cycle through workers in San Fran?
1. Re:Logan's Run by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-09-18 08:41 · Score: 2
  
  "they're just going to do what 100 other startups are doing. providing health tracking, health tips, tools to communicate with your physician and so forth. Unique ideas that 100000 others have had."
  
  I don't know if you are thinking small, or just one of those 'optimists' I've read about.
  
  Just think of the value of the sweet, sweet, sweet actuarial data once Google sets to work looking for correlations between medical data (the people with cheap EOLs, the people with expensive ones, anything else that an insurer might want to know), with nonmedical, almost entirely unprotected as a matter of law or fact, consumer web-behavior, interest, location, etc. information!
  
  It'll combine all the most obnoxious aspects of GATTACCA-style eugenic dystopia and targeted advertising!
They care..... sure.... by GT66 · 2013-09-18 07:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

HIPAA is getting in Google's way. They can't just "take" people's health information the same as they do general user data. So, in order to acquire what migh actually be considered "private" data, they have chosen to be a health care provider which then gives them direct access to that normally off limits data.
1. Re:They care..... sure.... by GT66 · 2013-09-18 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  "Are you telling me if they had peer reviewed studies proving these drugs improved your health or extended your useful life you would not take them?"
  Ah yes, the ultimate offer that cannot be refused.
2. Re:They care..... sure.... by geek · 2013-09-18 08:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You think they don't already have health data on people? How many times did you google herpes this year? Did you email your parents/kids telling them about your shingles, bad knees, bad eyesite?
  If other people over the age of 50-60 are anything like my parents and parents in law, virtually every conversation revolves around their new ailments. Google has a crap ton of this info in their systems already and are fully prepared to start spamming the latest Cialis ads at every that's every used the word "dick" in an email.
3. Re:They care..... sure.... by Forbo · 2013-09-18 08:34 · Score: 2
  
  That really depends on the side effects, how much the drugs cost, and my what my quality of life would be with or without them.
4. Re:They care..... sure.... by Cro+Magnon · 2013-09-18 08:56 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If they can make me immortal by watching ads, I'd gladly watch ads.
  Well, the ads will make your life SEEM longer.
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
This is interesting by Andrio · 2013-09-18 07:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

I wish they were more specific though. What is this company going to do? Drugs? Medical devices?
Overall, I like the thought of a major IT company trying its hand in healthcare. For some reason it seems promising.

--
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
1. Re:This is interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 08:02 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  What they should do is focus on improving the quality of medical information available on the internet; it's in line with what Google's core capabilities are and to be honest would be a tremendous help. Google is probably the single biggest contributor to hypochondria in the US today, and I hear (anecdotally from doctors) that doctors waste about 40% of their time with patients dissuading them from incorrect self-diagnoses done through Google searches. My ex-wife was like this, she had a constant discomfort in her stomach; looking it up on Google she was positively convinced she had endomitriosis. She would shop doctors, not going to a single one more than once, and eliminated each one because none of them gave her the diagnosis she wanted because her symptoms were only marginally endomitriosis and were likely due more to the self-inflicted stress she caused herself.
  Google has become the source of information for many people in the US and around the world; the next step they should focus on is improving the quality of that information. The medical world is probably an excellent place to start.
2. Re:This is interesting by Hognoxious · 2013-09-18 08:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Overall, I like the thought of a major IT company trying its hand in healthcare. For some reason it seems promising.
  It seems promising to me too. Promising in a similar way to a major interior design firm trying its hand at building nuclear reactors.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
3. Re:This is interesting by Thud457 · 2013-09-18 08:25 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  1. google streetview cars will get caught stealing the password for grandma's pacemaker.
  2. google brainslug implant. back yourself up to the the cloud!
  3. google proctological exams -- taking privacy invasion to the next level.
  4. you know that 17.9% GDP the US spends inefficiently on healthcare? the good news, google's gonna streamline that to only 9.7%, the bad news, they're taking 1% of the total for their effort.
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
how about fighting poverty by spune · 2013-09-18 07:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

1/5 children in America live in poverty. 2/5 lack adequate nutrition. But let's instead focus on improving the quality of life and longevity of the wealthy!
1. Re:how about fighting poverty by h4rr4r · 2013-09-18 08:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think you mean a War against the Poor, aka the War on Drugs. A war on poverty would include things like access to healthcare, or equalizing education funds for schools, or job training, or any attempt to make folks other than entertainers famous.
2. Re:how about fighting poverty by h4rr4r · 2013-09-18 08:04 · Score: 2
  
  That is only because the percentage of dropouts has gone down and now the only ones left doing that are the totally destitute and willfully ignorant. In the past white women could drop out without much impact on their families income or future.
  Children going hungry is a totally different problem that should be address with Free breakfast and lunch at schools for all students, not just the ones in poverty.
3. Re:how about fighting poverty by Andrio · 2013-09-18 08:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Fighting poverty would require such things like raising the minimum wage to something you can live off of (this just failed to happen in DC, for people employed by major retailers like Walmart), putting a cap on interest rates by credit cards/loans, increasing education spending, etc.
  All these things are impossible to do by anyone as long as companies are allowed to buy what they want from politicians.
  
  --
  The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
4. Re:how about fighting poverty by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 08:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Is Google a government agency or a charity organization?
5. Re:how about fighting poverty by h4rr4r · 2013-09-18 08:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  So explain why increasing the minimum wage actually does help the economy?
  Surprise surprise giving money to those who will spend it rather than sit on it helps the economy and the poor. Labor costs in stores is not the primary cost. You could raise the wage to $15/hour and the price of a bigmac to produce would go up a few cents.
6. Re:how about fighting poverty by geek · 2013-09-18 08:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah, it sounds like Cook is talking about Jobs. Boo Hoo... He was a rich (dick) who died relatively young.
  
  Regardless of whether Jobs was a dick, he certainly was rich. He didn't die because of a lack of health care, he died because he was fucking stupid and didn't listen to his doctors, and pursued homeopathic bullshit remedies for an aggressive pancreatic cancer.
  Jobs would likely be here today running Apple had he not been a fucking idiot hippie with a grudge against modern medicine. In Jobs case, natural selection was not his friend.
7. Re:how about fighting poverty by istartedi · 2013-09-18 09:16 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  rich people don't 'sit on their money' like Scrooge McDuck in your comic books
  Actually they kind of do.
  So why not raise it [the wage for a fast-food worker] to $100 and make everyone rich?
  That's somewhat of a straw-man. The previous poster probably understands that if you raise it too far you'd get wage-price spiral inflation. At least, I hope they do. I think the best way to look at this is that there's an optimal pay for the economy to function well, and that a lot of people think the working class is now earning less than that optimum.
  In essence, the upper tier has cornered the dollar market, which would explain why the dollar is falling--whenever somebody corners the market in something, it inevitably results in that something crashing. Just look at the infamous Hunt Brother's episode in silver, and the gold corner in the late 1800s. Rational? No. It's human nature to pile on, get roaring drunk, and then deal with a hangover.
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
8. Re:how about fighting poverty by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-09-18 09:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Hint: rich people don't 'sit on their money' like Scrooge McDuck in your comic books. They invest it in the businesses that provide jobs for those poor people.
  Not really, no. They usually have a diverse investment portfolio beyond a certain level, some in property, some in stocks and bonds, and the rest in various other investment vehicles. You don't get rich and stay rich by doing anything as risky as actually starting viable businesses (90% failure rate is a sucker's game), even VCs are only in it as long as it takes to pump up the company and sell it on to some starry eyed boob, or at least another VC who thinks they can pump it up even further.
  Ah you say, but stocks are investing a company, again not really, at least after the first sale. There's no particular reason they have to buy stocks directly from the company, they could just buy from a previous investor, and the value of the stocks rarely has anything to do with the performance of a company. A positive or negative article in the Financial Times can have more of an impact on the value of a stock than any number of profitable quarters.
  If the only way to increase wealth was to directly invest in businesses, then yes you'd have a point. But unfortunately it's not, and is in fact a rather poor approach to investment.
9. Re:how about fighting poverty by mrchew1982 · 2013-09-18 12:31 · Score: 2
  
  damn, how i wish that i had mod points!!!
They did that already by BetaDays · 2013-09-18 08:27 · Score: 2

Well not really but they did have a project that they cancled that I used. Google Health. I guess they can restart that up. http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/health/about/

--
Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
This is not about you and me. by Gavin+Scott · 2013-09-18 10:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is not about you and me and our health data, it's about some billionaires who (understandably) don't want to see what happened to Steve Jobs happen to them.
You can sit around and say this is Evil and whatnot, but honestly would any of us here behave any differently if we were in their position?
Note that the president of the new company Calico is Art Levinson, who is currently also Chairman of Genentech and *Apple* so there's a direct Steve Jobs link here and even a quote in the press release from Tim Cook:
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.”
So this is all very science-fiction (both from a technology *and* a social point of view) and it will be fascinating to watch.
From a Science point of view this is really interesting because at the moment there are relatively few sources of funding for basic life-extension research, since much research money comes from the government, and making people live longer is no more politically acceptable than talking about population control. So if you're a fan of applied biological research and specifically life-extension technologies then you should be pretty excited by Google's move here.
Interesting times.
G.
P.S. I for one welcome our new genetically enhanced immortal geek overlords.