64
The Gruesome Story of How Neuralink’s Monkeys Actually Died (www.wired.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/science@mander.xyz
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Animal testing need not be gruesome - and indeed must not be according to most IACUCs and IRB approvals.

Typically, minimizing animal suffering and humane procedures for determining when and how to euthanize animals is typically a big part of getting sign off for this kind of thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    “Gruesome” is just a clickbait word used here by whoever wrote the article.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    '...an internal part of the device “broke off” while being implanted. Overnight, researchers observed the monkey, identified only as “Animal 20” by UC Davis, scratching at the surgical site, which emitted a bloody discharge... ...A surgery to repair the issue was carried out the following day, yet fungal and bacterial infections took root. '

    'Animal 15 began to lose coordination, and staff observed that she would shake uncontrollably when she saw lab workers. Her condition deteriorated for months until the staff finally euthanized her. A necropsy report indicates that she had bleeding in her brain and that the Neuralink implants left parts of her cerebral cortex “focally tattered.” '

    When you get a device jammed in your brain and a piece of it breaks off and you start emitting bloody discharge because of the fungal infection in your brain that leaves you shaking uncontrollably for months because your brain is bleeding and your cerebral cortex is torn to shreds, and you die, please forgive me for describing your death as "gruesome".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Those are 2 different animals btw, not one like you’re making out. What is the criteria for “gruesome”? What is the difference between “gruesome” and “horrific”? Is “horrific” allowed?

    Again though - this is testing. This is the entire point of it. Like I said - would you rather they just jumped straight to human trials and this happened to people?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Those are 2 different animals btw, not one like you’re making out.

    This makes it worse, not better. If it were one, it might be chalked up to a fluke.

    What is the difference between “gruesome” and “horrific”? Is “horrific” allowed?

    No, certainly not.

    Again though - this is testing. This is the entire point of it.

    No. Animal suffering is absolutely not the point. Humane treatment of animals does not mean that they will never suffer - they will. I'm not against using animals in experiments, indeed I've done so myself. Humane treatment means that you put in the effort and bear the cost of minimizing suffering to the extent possible.

    Like I said - would you rather they just jumped straight to human trials and this happened to people?

    This is not the trade off. There is a wide spectrum of behavior between "never test on animals" and "treat animals purely as tools."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Or they just don't try this at all. The technology seems beyond far-fetched at this point, like mad scientist far-fetched. The tech is too light on theory to begin practical testing, At this point, it's just inhumane.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •