Slashdot Mirror


Google Snapping Up Top Biomedical Talent (nature.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Google is expanding its scope once again. The company has been pushing hard to lure top physicians and researchers in the life sciences away from their prestigious academic posts. Google is easily able to pay more than universities, and they also offer a different type of focus. "Silicon Valley offers strong technology resources that are hard to access in academia, Topol says, as well as the opportunity to pursue goals that are difficult to reach for in academia, where scientists are not typically rewarded for pursuing real-world applications." Other companies are starting to push into this sector as well, but none of them match Google's efforts; it's estimated the company is now pouring a billion dollars a year into life-sciences research.

76 comments

  1. Google "snapping up"... "lure" ...and "real-world" by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    my daddy was right. should have taken up fishing.

  2. ok. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And a princess can employ a materials scientist, but there's going to be a lot more innovation in textile design if the guy isn't wasting his mind making pretty dresses all day.

    The best researchers could always accept a higher paying commercial gig, but don't. My discipline is mathematics and, well, making money would be a much easier intellectual challenge than the ones I choose to face.

  3. Make your time by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

    All your base (pairs) are belong to us!

    (Along with all of your proteins, lipids, carbohydrates and damned well everything else you have.)

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Make your time by Cthefuture · · Score: 1

      Do not worry, Omni Consumer Products has your back! Omnicorp!

      (don't mind the large robots trying to kill you, this is a free service!)

      --
      The ratio of people to cake is too big
    2. Re:Make your time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just a couple weeks ago I attended the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) annual meeting in Baltimore. There were somewhere on the order of 7,000 people attending. So, if Google wanted to "own" genomics research - just in the USA - and not other huge fields like cancer research - then they would have to hire many thousands of research scientists. Now, Google (well, technically Alphabet) is a very big company so it wouldn't be impossible for them to hire that many research scientists. But, at the moment, they aren't hiring anywhere near that many research scientists.

      Things could change quickly but, at the moment, Google is really just a teeny-tiny insignificant little player in the general field of biomedical research. Sure, they've got a couple very small projects that rate very high on the coolness factor. But even just compared to other established healthcare companies (i.e. that own major hospital systems and HMOs), Google is a very minor player.

      TL;DR - in the near future your base (pairs) may belong to a private corporation but it's unlikely to be Google/Alphabet.

    3. Re:Make your time by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      All your base (pairs) are belong to us!

      (Along with all of your proteins, lipids, carbohydrates and damned well everything else you have.)

      Hey! Those self-replicating airborne biological tracker-viruses with remote activate-able target-termination, streaming direct-to-brain advertisement, thought-monitoring, and remote behavior-modification/adjustment capability ain't gonna design & deploy themselves!

      Why do you hate scientific progress?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  4. good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything that shows universities for what they are: ossified cults.

    1. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, nothing is better for humanity than more corporate-owned scientific research.

    2. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the non-corporate universities... Uh huh.

    3. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Public universities are far better.

    4. Re:good by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      How so? The research they do is usually corporate-funded.

    5. Re: good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No it's not. You read one article about GMO research and now you think you know something.

    6. Re: good by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. University research has been corporate-funded for decades.

    7. Re: good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, big ags like Monsanto do their own research. They pass that on to the FDA (in the US of course) and the FDA uses that research to determine whether or not to allow the product into the market. There's very little independent review of GMO products since the bulk of research comes from the developers.

    8. Re: good by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      University research has been corporate-funded for decades.

      I don't know what other fields are like, but for biomedical research this is absolutely wrong. I worked for both public and private universities in the US for 15 years and the vast majority of scientists were getting the vast majority of their funding from the NIH, or maybe the NSF, plus a few big private foundations like HHMI. Funding from companies was not uncommon - in fact it paid my salary for a couple of years, thank you tech transfer department* - but for most researchers it was a fraction of whatever the government was giving them. (In the group where I was paid by corporate money, I was the only one, while another dozen people were paid by an NIH grant.)

      (* actually, no. Working with companies as an academic can be an incredible pain in the ass and I didn't like our licensing policies anyway. And it certainly did skew our priorities somewhat, which was even more annoying. But we absolutely didn't need the money either.)

    9. Re: good by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Ah yes. Take the money from the corporation, have the middle-man skim off the top while doling it out, do the research and then sue all the corporations that use the "publicly funded" research without paying the university directly also.

      Yeah, a good thing corporations aren't the only ones doing research and requiring licensing fees.

  5. Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Silicon valley can ruin biomedical research like they ruined CS research!

  6. biomedical research set back a generation.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but who cares - if it isn't immediately applicable to a real world situation it isn't worth doing.

    1. Re:biomedical research set back a generation.. by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      It's worth doing things that aren't immediately applicable and things that are. Often, things that are immediately applicable will turn up new questions for basic research, and basic research leads to applications at some point (sometimes). But in order to really help people, you need both areas.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  7. Google or Alphabet? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is this really Google's doing because none of this seems to be search engine related. It seems far more likely that this is Alphabet's doing.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Google or Alphabet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey look, Admiral Aspergers has joined the conversation.

      And, no, It's Google that is doing it since the story is referencing things that happened long before Alphabet ever existed.

    2. Re:Google or Alphabet? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Alphabet didn't even exist when they started all of this.

    3. Re:Google or Alphabet? by non0score · · Score: 1

      I think it's still just a simple matter of people still thinking of Alphabet as "Google".

    4. Re:Google or Alphabet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people will continue to think of Alphabet as being Google.

      The only people who care are investors that review balance sheets.

      If there is any confusion, well, blame Google :)

    5. Re: Google or Alphabet? by jimbo · · Score: 1

      Also known as the Umbrella Corporation.

    6. Re: Google or Alphabet? by robi5 · · Score: 1

      Alphabet, the wholly owning subsidiary of Google

  8. Wait for their 10K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They might not be making as much money as they once were. Hopefully not, but with adblockers and all.

  9. Could be good by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    If Google was to invest in drug research and make the resulting drugs available at a reasonable cost, that would be awesome.

    Pretty soon, all will be Google....everything will be Google, and Google will be everything.

    You''ll get up out for your Google bed, have Google brand eggs and pancakes, wash it down with Google OJ and Google coffee while watching GoogleTV, then get in your self-driving Googlemobile and go to work at Google.

    You'll poop in Google brand toilets, wipe with Googlepaper, wash your hands with Google soap and then walk on Google carpeting back to your GoogleCube where you will happily toil in the employ of Google. If you're a good Google employee, you may be allowed to name your firstborn child "Google" (or "Googlette" if it's a girl.)

    Later, you'll die in a Google Assisted Living facility and your body will be fed into the GoogleFurnace so the trace elements can be extracted and recycled for use in Google brand products. Your cremains will be taken out and sprinkled in the ocean, err, I mean in the "Google Ocean".

    And so the Cycle of Life, err, I mean the "Cycle Of Google" will begin anew. All hail our Google overlords, blessed be thy names!

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Could be good by galabar · · Score: 3, Funny

      You won't have to wipe -- Google toilets are way more advanced than that.

    2. Re:Could be good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After looking at scholar.google.com and other research tools like genomequest/lifequest ,Questel , thomson rueters innovations...

      Google life sciences play is probably to develop a search engine technology to help the researches make faster strides.... It's a market where it needs to be dumbed down for more people.. Maybe google buys up the smaller companies like Genomequest and Questel ? And improves upon it to make reaserchers jobs easier and help move drugs along faster ?

    3. Re:Could be good by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is not a new thought. Here's another old one: I do not know whether to be happy or sad that Google is more competent than most governments, because if it should become them, it will be able to do what they do better than they do. Unfortunately, much of what many governments do is stuff we would prefer they didn't...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Could be good by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      A bidet isn't that advanced.

    5. Re:Could be good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So what massive highway systems has Google built and maintained? What fire and police services? What water and electricity utilities? What public health care systems have they created and managed? What public universities have they founded and owned?

      I could go on and on about things governments do that Google could never replicate and only fringe loons would want to be abolished.

    6. Re:Could be good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google's only number 39 on the list of those companies that control everything. http://www.forbes.com/global2000/list/#tab:overall

      You'll be speaking Chinese before everything is branded Google.

    7. Re:Could be good by non0score · · Score: 2

      If Alphabet/Google has its way, you can scratch out the last two lines -- you won't have to get old or die.

    8. Re:Could be good by Grishnakh · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What water and electricity utilities?

      None that I know of, but they've been really successful at being a fiber-broadband utility company, something that most governments around the US are absolutely lousy at facilitating. Instead, they stupidly (or corruptly) grant monopolies to shitty companies like Comcrap who then rape consumers with high prices and horrible service. Great job, governments! Yes, there's a few rare exceptions like Chattanooga, but most state governments prefer to ban municipal broadband like Chattanooga's. Again, great job, governments!

      What public health care systems have they created and managed?

      None, but neither has the US government. Healthcare in the US is a complete disaster.

      There are some governments which seem to do a pretty good job at a lot of these services, but they're all over in Europe, especially Scandinavia. Over here, government is totally and utterly dysfunctional and corrupt.

    9. Re:Could be good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not know whether to be happy or sad that Google is more competent than most governments,...

      When it comes to biomedical research, let's not count the Google/Alphabet chickens before they've hatched. Government funded biomedical research is producing major new discoveries and tools on an ongoing basis. So far, Google/Alphabet hasn't really produced much of anything (in the field of biomedical research).

    10. Re:Could be good by jafiwam · · Score: 2

      And all restaurants will be Taco Bell? (after the restaurant wars you see)

    11. Re:Could be good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He merrly said "governments". Not any specific country. And running a broadband company is not that amazing of a feat.

    12. Re:Could be good by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It is in the US, apparently. And he's talking about Google, which is an American company, so a comparison with governments in America is completely relevant.

    13. Re:Could be good by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Pretty soon, all will be Google....everything will be Google, and Google will be everything."

      This meme alternates weekly with the "Google never finishes anything" meme.

    14. Re: Could be good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google's biotech firm, Calico, claims immortality is feasible.

      http://techgenmag.com/2015/04/will-science-let-you-live-forever-the-genetics-of-immortality-say-yes/

      Also the study of the flatworm is pretty interesting.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120227152612.htm

    15. Re:Could be good by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      And all restaurants will be Taco Bell? (after the restaurant wars you see)

      If only.....no, they'll be "Google Bell".

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    16. Re:Could be good by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      "Pretty soon, all will be Google....everything will be Google, and Google will be everything."
      This meme alternates weekly with the "Google never finishes anything" meme.

      Yeah, well you won't be laughing after Google buys Amazon and turns it into GoogleZon, now will you, Citizen?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  10. Enjoy a Haiku by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thai chick with a dick
    Hard truth known, couldn't resist
    Loved those huge fake tits

  11. And after a couple of years w/o a vacation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    many of them will return to academia. I had more time off the two years I taught comp sci than I have had total the past twenty-two years in private industry. A 90% cut in your vacation time will wear you down, especially if you were used to having it.

    1. Re: And after a couple of years w/o a vacation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Top academics rarely take more breaks than a top tech worker, although they can make use of the flexible schedule.

    2. Re:And after a couple of years w/o a vacation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I couldn't imagine going from being a college professor to a high pressure job at somewhere like Google. I was a high school teacher and taught 180 days of the year (less than half!), and after getting a job at a tech start-up, I left after less than a year to go back to teaching. Google is going to have terrible turn-over with this bad plan.

    3. Re: And after a couple of years w/o a vacation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The flexibility part is awesome. My college has two 14 week semesters, and my classes have always been on Tue/Thurs. Since I make my office hours the same days, I've gotten away with only going into work about 65 days a year (14 weeks * 2 days per week * 2 semesters per year + about ten misc days) since I started. The pay is crap, but I would never consider doing anything else.

    4. Re:And after a couple of years w/o a vacation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      A research professor at a prestigious university is very used to a high stress work environment and working extreme hours, believe me. These are some of the most competitive positions in the world. This is a completely different situation from teaching high school, and also very different from your parent comment's "I taught some comp sci classes."

    5. Re: And after a couple of years w/o a vacation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Most of the summer plus a long Christmas vacation was what I always took off. I usually didn't go into school for ten while weeks a year. After taking a job in the real world, I haven't been able to take more than a long weekend.

    6. Re: And after a couple of years w/o a vacation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is about Top Talent. There's plenty of smart people in sciences. The other half is hard work. People that don't commit hard almost never make it to the top. High achievement is a way of life, not a windfall.

    7. Re: And after a couple of years w/o a vacation... by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      You (if you're the OP) were teaching, not doing research. Research in academia is definitely more like industry, at least in the biomedical field. You can take some time off (depending on your lab/company) but if anything, you get more of a work/life balance in industry. It's still a shitty balance, mind you, but...

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  12. Do Sergei and Larry have Kurzweil Komplex? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2

    Yes I know they're working on cure for cancer, but I have this sneaking suspicion that these guys are trying to live forever, like Ray Kurzweil.

    Of course curing cancer could be just step 1 of their master program.

    1. Re:Do Sergei and Larry have Kurzweil Komplex? by non0score · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with that? Lots of people are trying to live forever. You know that guy who owns Oracle? He wants to live forever too, plus probably every other billionaire. Hell, all emperors of China tried to live forever. Larry/Sergey are the only ones who are doing it with the expressed purpose of helping humankind.

    2. Re:Do Sergei and Larry have Kurzweil Komplex? by Robotbeat · · Score: 1

      Every billionaire except Elon Musk, who explicitly said recently he wouldn't like to live forever. http://www.vanityfair.com/news...

    3. Re:Do Sergei and Larry have Kurzweil Komplex? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I have to say that living forever would really suck if we don't make significant progress against cancer. So if the super-billionaires want immortality for themselves, they're going to need to do something about cancer, and it seems likely that at least some of that success would trickle down to the 99.9999 percent.

    4. Re:Do Sergei and Larry have Kurzweil Komplex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The IT industry is pivoting towards the medical industry as the Next Big Thing; especially how it's physically the essence of life as we know it. It's all about health/medical data capture and analytics; to improve the quality of life by informing individuals on how to improve their well being via making healthy choices. OTOH, do you really want the Federal Gov or insurance industry having access to this data? What if it's mandatory?

    5. Re: Do Sergei and Larry have Kurzweil Komplex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kurzweil is the Google director of engineering since two years ago.

  13. You're right, GP should have national by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > What fire and police services? What water and electricity utilities? What public health care systems have they created and managed? What public universities have they founded and owned?

    You're right, local governments have done those things. Of course Google also operates a utility that offers 1,000 Mbps for lower cost than competitors 20 Mbps.

    GP should have compared the FEDERAL government,

  14. Oh... God... by Greyfox · · Score: 2
    It's finally become self-aware and now wants to make a meat-body, so it can be made of meat!

    No, wait. That's stupid.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  15. Golden handcuffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
    Another day older and deeper in debt
    Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
    I owe my soul to the company store....

    You WILL regret working^H^H^H^H^H^H^H selling your soul to google.

  16. Wth all this hiring, where are the job postings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as I can tell, Google is hiring a very very small number of the biggest name biomedical research scientists. Given that there are far more people trained up (i.e. PhDs) and ready to do biomedical research than there are available jobs, the very small number of biomedical researcher scientists who move to Google won't be missed even slightly. For every research scientist who moves to Google there are dozens of research scientists who are just as talented and motivated who are waiting to take their place.

    What's interesting to me is that Google doesn't seem to be hiring hardly any lower level scientists. In the typical academic model, a top-level principle investigator will have dozens of post-docs and grads students and lab tech working in their lab - and then they get to take (shared) credit for any discoveries that come out of their lab. But Google mostly seems to be hiring a few of the really big names. Maybe it will turn out that a few big name research scientists are all that is needed to make major discoveries - and that the post-docs and grad students and lab techs of academia are just dead weight.

    But Google might also find themselves in a situation of "too many chiefs and not enough indians" (i.e. too many bosses and not enough workers).

  17. Google's toxic SV centric no-telecommute culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's toxic, Google. Stop it.

    If you are going to flood the world with your money, it would be less evil to spread it out across the USA and let people work from home. Stop being fucking assholes.

  18. Re:Wth all this hiring, where are the job postings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Google might also find themselves in a situation of "too many chiefs and not enough indians" (i.e. too many bosses and not enough workers).

    Good thing you cleared up the chiefs/indians metaphor otherwise no one would have known what you meant.

  19. hubris by sittingnut · · Score: 1

    too much money to waste in fields and places they do not know much about, for unclear motives, to achieve unclear goals, through murky means.
    just like usa and other western governments wasting blood and treasure in iraq, afagnistan, syria, libya, etc,etc,, through among other things, invasions, coups, drone killing children, torture, etc etc,, to allegedly promote liberty and democracy, (or more probably to loot resources to keep up the lifestyles of western citizen voters and their debt-ridden wasteful culture of death, catered to by companies like google)

    if there is a new thing to be found or invented it will not be due to some government or government like company throwing money at it. see origin of google itself.
     

  20. Better Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alphabet is a silly name anyway.

    They should have named it Ubik.

  21. of course they are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with google's and eric schmidt's transhumanist plans, every human will have every shred of humanity taken away from them

  22. Google will eat itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty soon, all will be Google....everything will be Google, and Google will be everything.

    Actually, not forever.

    In about 200 million years (rough estimate), Google will have autocannibalized.

    http://www.gwei.org/index.php

  23. Why doesn't Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snap up top Engineering talent?

  24. not so significant... by Goldsmith · · Score: 2

    The top 15 pharmaceutical companies and the top 10 medical device companies all spend significantly more than $1b per year on R&D. Google is high profile because it's NOT in pharma or medical devices, but adding $1b per year to the overall industrial expenditure on R&D in these areas is not disruptive. It makes an interesting story to imagine that Google is coming in and stealing all the academics away, but that's not reality.

  25. Long Term Google by lucien86 · · Score: 2

    Google's aim seems to be specifically at things that may have big long term pay-offs. - Some of them probably a decade or more in the future. That's where the really huge stupendous amounts of money lie.
    In Strong AI the long term market (20 to 30 years) could easily hit over a trillion dollars a year. And Strong AI isn't like software, it tends towards a natural monopoly with only a few very big players and strong regulation.. Software doesn't generally tend to kill people when things go wrong - Strong AI does.. That actually is likely to be a common selling point, 'Only XXX Corp can build your Strong AI safely!'

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  26. Next, Google starts making Brawndo by jmcwork · · Score: 1

    Then we know we are finished.

  27. Longevity research? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Is this really Google's doing because none of this seems to be search engine related.

    There were news items a few months ago saying some of the Silicon Valley billionaires were planning to fund anti-ageing medical research.

      - The medical establishment hasn't been pushing it because the FDA considers ageing to be a normal process, rather than a disease, and so treatments and drugs to retard or reverse it, even if they were amazingly effective, would be unlikely to be something they can bring to market and recover and profit from an investment.

      - The Federal Government has a strong financial interest in oldsters dying off, because they're more of a drag on entitlement programs than a source of tax money (and less likely to vote for the current crop of politicians - of either party - than better-indoctrinated and/or less experienced younger people). They've been talking about "bringing the death rate up to meet the birth rate" in order to avoid the bankruptcy of Social Security since at least the early '80s. Obamacare has similar financial issues but has raised the ante, and taken over control of the dispensing of most healthcare. (Some believe it's the end-game for getting rid of the Boomers. Witness the discussion about whether it includes "death panels".) So don't expect a lot of anti-ageing funding from the government.

    Medical insurance companies have a similar incentive structure - as has long been noted.

    Even the life-extension movement people are not funded well enough to do more than watch the literature for possible age-slowing discoveries and work on better ways to put their members into cryonic suspension when they die (funded mainly by life insurance policies) in the hope of future breakthroughs.

    (A real cure for ageing, of course, or even a close approximation, wouldn't produce the bankruptcy scenario. By restoring youth and health it would avoid the need to retire and be supported by ever-increasing medical intervention. The reduction of these costs, and increasing value produced by longer working life, after deducting the costs of the anti-ageing treatments itself, should be big drop in expense. But that's beyond the bureaucratic planning horizon.)

    So if Internet Billionaires want any medical research that might extend their lives and those of their employees, friends, associates, the builders and maintainers of the infrastructure that supports them, and perhaps the rest of humanity, they'll have to fund it themselves.

    Fortunately, a few of them ARE doing so. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  28. Maybe.... Cures instead of palliatives? by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

    Google had been disruptive across many areas. Maybe.... Fingers crossed.... They actually want to look for cures instead of of the lifelong palliatives we typically get, that provide revenue instead of good health.

    --
    Only boring people are ever bored.