Loading
Old version — revision 2
This is a fixed snapshot of Calico Life Sciences, saved by Import. It is not edited and it is not updated; the article may have changed since.
Edit summary: Re-import of content/calico.md — the file changed after the initial import. Not an edit.
Read the current versionWhat this revision changedAll 2 revisions
Alphabet's independent biotechnology company, founded in 2013 to study the biology of aging and develop interventions against age-related disease.
Calico Life Sciences, originally the California Life Company, is a biotechnology company founded by Google in September 2013 to study the biology of aging and translate it into treatments for age-related disease. It was the first attempt by a large technology company to fund aging research at pharmaceutical scale, it operates with unusual secrecy, and after more than a decade its public output remains modest relative to the capital committed. Supporters and critics alike cite it as the reference case for what happens when the Geroscience hypothesis is given a large budget and a long horizon.
Calico's founding proposition was that aging is a tractable biological problem that pharmaceutical companies neglect because it is not a disease with a regulatory pathway, and that a company insulated from quarterly pressure could do the basic biology first and find the drug later. Arthur Levinson, formerly chief executive of Genentech and chairman of Apple, was named chief executive at launch and has held the role since.
The company divides its work between discovery research (comparative biology, cellular aging mechanisms, computational genomics) and a drug development organization run in partnership with AbbVie. The two halves are connected loosely enough that Calico's most advanced clinical assets do not obviously derive from its aging research.
Google announced Calico in September 2013 with a Time magazine cover asking whether the company could solve death, a framing Levinson has consistently avoided. David Botstein, a geneticist known for foundational work on genetic linkage mapping, joined as chief scientific officer and built the discovery organization. Hal Barron joined as president of research and development in 2014 and left in 2018 for GSK; he later became chief executive of Altos Labs.
In September 2014, Calico and AbbVie announced a collaboration in which each committed several hundred million dollars, with AbbVie providing pharmaceutical development capability and commercial rights and Calico providing discovery. The partnership was expanded twice, and total committed funds across the extensions have been reported in the billions. Reports from the mid-2020s describe the collaboration as having narrowed, with fewer programmes carried forward.
Calico recruited Rochelle Buffenstein and her naked mole-rat colony, one of the largest anywhere. The colony produced the field's most-cited quantitative claim about Negligible senescence. An analysis of thousands of animal-years found that the hazard of death in naked mole-rats does not increase detectably with age after sexual maturity, in contrast to the Gompertzian doubling seen in nearly every other mammal.1 The animals are not immortal, since they die of infection, injury and, rarely, cancer, but the result establishes that mammalian mortality acceleration is not obligatory.
The company has also worked on the short-lived African turquoise killifish as a vertebrate aging model, and on yeast under Botstein. Comparative work of this kind is the field's main way of learning which of the damage mechanisms observed in laboratory mice are general features of mammalian aging and which are artefacts of one heavily inbred species with a three-year lifespan.
A Calico collaboration with Ancestry.com analysed pedigree data from hundreds of millions of individuals and concluded that published heritability estimates for human lifespan, commonly given as roughly 25 per cent, are substantially inflated. People choose partners with similar life expectancy, and pedigree methods misattribute that similarity to genetics.2 The corrected estimate was well under 10 per cent. It is one of the field's more consequential negative results, and it constrains what genomic approaches to Maximum human lifespan can be expected to deliver. The estimate is a population average; the centenarian-genetics programmes run by Nir Barzilai and others instead look for variants in exceptionally long-lived families.
Calico's most advanced clinical asset with AbbVie is a small-molecule activator of eIF2B, the translation-initiation factor whose inhibition drives the integrated stress response. It has been studied in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and in vanishing white matter disease, a rare leukodystrophy caused by eIF2B mutations. Other disclosed programmes have included work on Proteostasis collapse and on cancer immunology. None is an aging indication, because no such indication exists at any regulator, which is the problem the TAME trial was designed to address.
Why the pipeline is not about agingA company cannot run a registrational trial for "aging" because no regulator recognizes it as a treatable condition and no surrogate endpoint has been qualified. Every well-capitalized longevity company therefore ends up developing drugs for specific diseases and arguing that the underlying biology generalizes. One route around the constraint has been veterinary: Loyal is pursuing a lifespan indication in dogs, which the animal-drug regulator will entertain and its human counterpart will not. Calico's pipeline is the clearest illustration of the constraint.
Calico is a subsidiary of Alphabet and does not publish financial statements. Alphabet's filings have disclosed its holdings in the "Other Bets" segment without breaking out Calico specifically. Public estimates of total commitment from Alphabet and AbbVie combined run to several billion dollars over a decade, which places it in the same order of magnitude as Altos Labs.
Its structure has cut both ways. Independence from Alphabet's core business gave it a long horizon. Dependence on AbbVie for development gave it a partner whose priorities are pharmaceutical rather than gerontological, and when those priorities shifted the collaboration narrowed accordingly.
Criticism of Calico centres on output. For a decade of work at pharmaceutical scale the public record consists of a respectable but not extraordinary body of papers, no approved drug, and no aging-specific programme. Researchers in the field have noted that the secrecy makes it impossible to distinguish between slow progress and undisclosed progress, and that a company drawing heavily on academic talent while publishing selectively imposes a cost on the field it does not repay.
A more sympathetic reading is that Calico did exactly what it said it would. It funded basic biology for years without a product, produced at least two results that changed what specialists believe (the naked mole-rat mortality analysis and the heritability correction), and reached the clinic with a mechanism-driven drug. Measured against the founding rhetoric about solving death, it has failed. Measured against a realistic prior for a preclinical research organization, it is unremarkable in both directions. Nothing it has produced has been shown to match the benefit of exercise, which remains the comparator any candidate geroprotector has to beat, and it has not attempted the kind of repurposing trial that Rapamycin and Senolytics advocates have pursued with far less money.
The company is also a cautionary reference for the The longevity dividend argument. Money and time were supplied at a level the field had never previously seen, and the binding constraint turned out to be the absence of a validated target and a measurable endpoint rather than funding.
The signals worth watching are whether the eIF2B programme produces a positive phase-three result in ALS, which would validate the discovery organization independently of aging; whether Calico discloses a programme aimed at one of the Hallmarks of aging as revised in 2023 rather than at a named disease;3 and whether Alphabet's commitment survives the narrowing of the AbbVie relationship.
Calico's record also bears on the field as a whole. If more than a decade of well-funded, competently run work on the biology of aging has not produced a candidate intervention against aging itself, the constraint is unlikely to be money. The field's assumption that scale was the missing ingredient, which Retro Biosciences, NewLimit and Altos are all now testing again with fresh capital, needs a better justification than it currently has.
paperRuby, J.G., Smith, M. and Buffenstein, R. "Naked Mole-Rat mortality rates defy Gompertzian laws by not increasing with age." eLife, 2018.↩The records come from captive animals in laboratory colonies, not from a wild population.
paperRuby, J.G. et al. "Estimates of the Heritability of Human Longevity Are Substantially Inflated due to Assortative Mating." Genetics, 2018.↩Built from assembled public family trees rather than genotyped cohorts, so it revises a statistical estimate rather than implicating any gene.
paperLópez-Otín, C., Blasco, M.A., Partridge, L., Serrano, M. and Kroemer, G. "Hallmarks of aging: An expanding universe." Cell, 2023. ↩