Talk:Calico (company)

criticism
Why does such a small article have a section for 1 quote? First I don't think the quote is relevant to what the company does. Second its more of a reaction than a criticism. Sadly it silly to think that only the rich want to live better. Mantion (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, one quote doesn't warrant a whole section on this article. Unless more sources of criticism can be found I would suggest removing this quote. Also the quote itself is incomplete as Bill Gates also mentions "It would be nice to live longer though I admit." 12usn12 (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Some interesting criticism in Vox article: "Google is super secretive about its anti-aging research. No one knows why." --98.167.22.28 (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

more criticism
Can this page make clear the fact that Google's "life sciences" divisions have done, to the public's knowledge, essentially nothing?

I will just compare Google's foray into this space with a recent fraud, Theranos. Google has significant capital, as did Theranos. Google only really has expertise in computers and information technology, as did Theranos. Yet there are inherent barriers in the biotech space: biology is in some ways not at all like information technology.

Google, as far as I know, is not conducting actual clinical and preclinical trials using their capital. Or basic research, or translational research. There ARE people who do work in actual industry and academic biotech, and they are well-aware of the ethical, experimental and capital restraints. They are also well-aware of the significant capital issues in their fields.

To me, it appears Google created a division and hired some big-name people a la Hooli, and is paying them to essentially do nothing. No drugs have been invented by Google. Yet it appears they are trying to appear as the vanguard of innovation in a space that they don't specialize in.

Google can claim what they want, but when they control so much R&D capital, it reeks of damaging fraud to the actual biotech community, which develops important cures for humanity. I think a wikipedia article on this company should focus, quite directly, on what has actually been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.196.150 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Press coverage
Google’s Long, Strange Life Span Trip from the MIT Technology Review. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested edits
Hi. My name is Minna and I work for Calico. In compliance with WP:COI, I'm hoping to find an impartial editor willing to consider some changes to the page. My requests are as follows:


 * 1) Not Subsidiary: The first sentence and infobox incorrectly says Calico is a Google subsidiary. According to Time Magazine, Calico is "an entirely separate company" that was to be formed as "a separate entity". The Bloomberg article cited on the current page is unclear, which I think is the source of confusion.
 * 2) "A Massive Disappointment": This paragraph of the Reception section appears to be cited to an interview on YouTube. I don't believe the citation meets Wikipedia's policies for reliable sources and due weight. I've prepared a more neutral and properly cited paragraph here if an editor is interested in replacing, rather than deleting, the content.
 * 3) "and ineffectiveness given its huge budget.": I don't believe this is actually directly supported by the cited source, which criticizes Calico for secrecy (not ineffectiveness) for its budget.

Thanks in advance for anyone who chooses to help. Veteransway (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Veteransway I have made some changes, but I have one question before I marked this resolved.
 * 1. If it became part of the Alphabet family, wouldn't that make it a subsidiary?
 * Thanks for the rewrite on the reception section by the way, good work. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 02:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks . RE subsidiary, I think you might have it right actually - let me look into it and circle back.
 * just trimmed some promotional content from the page, which brings me to my next ask. My PR agency made a series of promotional edits to the Partnerships section, believing the edits were "approved" merely because they were not reverted. I apologize for that. I have learned better now.
 * While the promotional language has been cleaned up, the section still relies heavily on short blurbs, primary sources, and so on. I suggest restoring this version of the Partnerships section from before the PR agency made any changes. While that version isn't perfect, I think that would improve the page by purging the PR firm's editing.
 * Veteransway (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Veteransway I have trimmed up the partnerships section. Any word on the subsidiary question? Kline • talk to me! • contribs 21:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have since verified Calico is in fact a subsidiary. It's probably a good thing you questioned it. I'm not sure of any good quality citations that say "subsidiary" expressly, but it is true. Maybe just leave it?
 * The other thing I wanted to bring up; the Staff section covers historical hires and departures from 2013-2018. Can we merge that with the History section? Seems odd to have a dedicated section covering hires and departures from 7+ years ago.
 * Veteransway (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Veteransway I have merged it with the history section. Thanks for confirming the subsidiary issue. Is there anything else of concern? Kline • talk to me! • contribs 17:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for all your help !! My only remaining concern is the advert/COI tags. I think these were addressed by purging the page of edits when we restored the old version of the Partnerships section. I understand they were initially posted as a badge of shame of sorts, but I don't think the current page is contaminated by any bias from Calico. Veteransway (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Veteransway Tags are removed, all good? Kline • talk to me! • contribs 23:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! That's all the edits I wanted to request. Thanks again for helping out as an impartial editor. Your time is greatly appreciated. Veteransway (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Glad to help! Kline • talk to me! • contribs 21:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Glad to help! Kline • talk to me! • contribs 21:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)