At Musk’s brain-chip startup, animal-testing panel is rife with conflicts(reuters.com)
reuters.com
At Musk’s brain-chip startup, animal-testing panel is rife with conflicts
https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-brain-chip-startup-animal-testing-panel-is-rife-with-potential-conflicts-2023-05-04/
87 コメント
From what I can tell by looking at the IACUC membership lists for various institutions, it's completely normal to have almost all members of these committees come from the same institution.
For example, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, there are only two non-affiliated members out of an IACUC member list of 21 people.
https://animalcare.illinois.edu/about/institutional-animal-c...
In my opinion, this Reuters article is another manifestation of the anti-Musk media bias that preys on the ignorance of your average person who won't know that this IACUC structure is entirely par for the course.
For example, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, there are only two non-affiliated members out of an IACUC member list of 21 people.
https://animalcare.illinois.edu/about/institutional-animal-c...
In my opinion, this Reuters article is another manifestation of the anti-Musk media bias that preys on the ignorance of your average person who won't know that this IACUC structure is entirely par for the course.
This article and others are most certainly just baseless hit pieces. They have shown up before, and seem to be extreme animal activists leveraging anti-Musk sentiment.
A neurosurgeon at Neurallink was just on Huberman Lab. He discussed, in detail: why they do the kind of animal testing they do, the humane parts, inhumane practices, the internal culture.
I’ll take his word for it to be honest.
A neurosurgeon at Neurallink was just on Huberman Lab. He discussed, in detail: why they do the kind of animal testing they do, the humane parts, inhumane practices, the internal culture.
I’ll take his word for it to be honest.
In the interview you mention [1] at 1:27:20 “If tomorrow laws were changed and the FDA said okay you can do some of this early experimentation in willing human participants that would be a very interesting option I think there would be a lot of people who would step up.”
Holy shit that is a terrifying opinion for the head neurosurgeon at Neuralink to have. He thinks it is morally acceptable to experiment on humans with untested medical procedures that have demonstrably killed at least dozens of animal subjects and using processes that have resulted in inserting the wrong fucking implants in animal subjects. That is not merely immoral, that is capital E Evil.
If that is the sort of person they keep as the head of neurosurgery then I too will take his word for it and say they should be shut down and entire leadership team banned from management in any medical research as they have no business designing processes that may impact the lives of humans or other creatures when they have such a callous disregard for those same lives.
https://youtu.be/3ZGItIAUQmI
Holy shit that is a terrifying opinion for the head neurosurgeon at Neuralink to have. He thinks it is morally acceptable to experiment on humans with untested medical procedures that have demonstrably killed at least dozens of animal subjects and using processes that have resulted in inserting the wrong fucking implants in animal subjects. That is not merely immoral, that is capital E Evil.
If that is the sort of person they keep as the head of neurosurgery then I too will take his word for it and say they should be shut down and entire leadership team banned from management in any medical research as they have no business designing processes that may impact the lives of humans or other creatures when they have such a callous disregard for those same lives.
https://youtu.be/3ZGItIAUQmI
Experimenting on animals that cannot give informed consent is ok but not when there's a human involved? Arguably, I don't think that humans should get paid for what is essentially an elective surgery experiment when there's a real possibility of death. It should be completely volunteered and compensation should come in the form of a hospital bed, meals, and post-op care.
Jesus.
So the researchers "benefiting" should keep the volunteers alive, but actual compensation for time and suffering is somehow dismissable?
I think the people who say animals are sentient beings deserving of respect are less horrible
So the researchers "benefiting" should keep the volunteers alive, but actual compensation for time and suffering is somehow dismissable?
I think the people who say animals are sentient beings deserving of respect are less horrible
The same thing happens with organ donations. And sex work, sometimes.
As a society, there are things we don't want people to be coerced into via need for money. Trying hard enough to avoid that coercion gets in the way of fair compensation for those things.
If you can solve that problem (and not by just saying "universal basic income" very loudly) they'll probably give you the Nobel for economics.
As a society, there are things we don't want people to be coerced into via need for money. Trying hard enough to avoid that coercion gets in the way of fair compensation for those things.
If you can solve that problem (and not by just saying "universal basic income" very loudly) they'll probably give you the Nobel for economics.
Letting people volunteer for something dangerous is capital E Evil?
No it's the human experimentation part that's evil not "letting people volunteer."
Also the fact that it is structurally almost impossible for a layperson to give informed consent on a dangerous, highly experimental, early stage medical procedure, let alone a elective, non-medically necessary procedure. We have rules about human clinical testing for literally that reason.
Why can't they give informed consent? A layperson can understand a percent chance of grievous injury or death.
They do not know the percent chance of death during early experimentation. They literally do not understand the procedure well enough to estimate the effects with sufficient confidence for it to be acceptable to do in human subjects. That is why it is called early stage and why we have animal testing, to establish these parameters as best we can for it to be acceptable to attempt on humans. This is literally the blood the human clinical testing rules around consenting to procedures is written in.
And once they do enough animal testing, they can figure out a reasonable estimate for the danger.
And they've probably done enough for that.
The real barrier here is whether it's considered safe enough to let people volunteer, not just whether they can estimate the level of safety.
There's a big range of experiments where informed consent is possible but it's not allowed because it's too dangerous. I think this testing is probably in that range. And anything in that range is not a matter of "capital E Evil". Evil is when you're not getting consent, or similar.
And they've probably done enough for that.
The real barrier here is whether it's considered safe enough to let people volunteer, not just whether they can estimate the level of safety.
There's a big range of experiments where informed consent is possible but it's not allowed because it's too dangerous. I think this testing is probably in that range. And anything in that range is not a matter of "capital E Evil". Evil is when you're not getting consent, or similar.
Yes, when they do enough animal testing. That is literally not the case the head neurosurgeon is postulating. Immediately before the quote they say that animal testing is the only available option during early stage. They have no other choice which is why they do it, but if the FDA allowed human experimentation during such early stages it would be a interesting option to pursue in lieu of animal testing. That is literally saying that if they had a procedure that is not ready for humans under existing rules, they would totally do it if the FDA stopped having rules against it.
It seems that you're discounting the possibility that this neurosurgeon thinks that the procedure and technology is sufficiently safe to move to human work in an ethical manner.
My understanding is that the existing rules require a lot more pre-human testing than is necessary if your only goal is a good estimate of the danger level.
Trying to get closer to that amount, and risking more people, might be a bad idea but I would not call it evil.
Trying to get closer to that amount, and risking more people, might be a bad idea but I would not call it evil.
Doing the experiment is a fundamental part of letting people volunteer for the experiment.
And it's not cruel on purpose, it's dangerous because the tools are limited.
And it's not cruel on purpose, it's dangerous because the tools are limited.
As someone who literally would have never existed albeit for human experimentation, I have something of an opinion that sometimes pushing the boundaries of science is worth ethical sausage making.
You are putting words in his mouth and then getting upset about them.
His quoted words are him frankly admitting to wanting and being willing to do the sort of human experimentation universally prohibited by medical ethics. He is saying he's only being stopped by the oversight mechanisms that are in place to stop exactly that.
I do find that frightening and don't see what you and other commenters gain from downplaying the seriousness of that intention.
I do find that frightening and don't see what you and other commenters gain from downplaying the seriousness of that intention.
That's where I think you were putting words in his mouth. I don't think they are saying that they would want to do anything unethical or especially dangerous. That's connotation that you are inserting
Wanting to do early experimentation, that is currently only allowed to occur on animals due to safety concerns, on humans is definitionally unethical and especially dangerous. We banned it because it is unethical and especially dangerous in basically every case. There are literal decades of experience and piles of bodies supporting that point.
Obviously there are some exceptions, but whatever Neuralink is doing is not one of them. Their technology and any benefits it might bring is at best wholly speculative and would require years to reduce to practice. There is exactly zero compelling reason why they should be given a pass on human testing safety.
Suggesting that it would be acceptable to replace their animal testing with human testing as long as the volunteers were willing is about as “open and shut” unethical as you can get.
Obviously there are some exceptions, but whatever Neuralink is doing is not one of them. Their technology and any benefits it might bring is at best wholly speculative and would require years to reduce to practice. There is exactly zero compelling reason why they should be given a pass on human testing safety.
Suggesting that it would be acceptable to replace their animal testing with human testing as long as the volunteers were willing is about as “open and shut” unethical as you can get.
Human-based experimentation without proper research and understanding is unethical. We've seen what happens when that's done multiple times throughout history. That's why we have these guidelines in place. It's unethical, and what he would want to do without the law in place is unethical.
there are many countries where assisted suicide is becoming more widely accepted. Many people are willing organ donors and blood donors. Everyone and their bodies absolutely must be treated with the utmost respect, but for many, the highest respect is to be part of even the smallest iota of scientific progress.
Y'all are fucking scary I'm just extremely thankful we actually have rules of medical ethics that are enforced rather than letting you and this wannabe Mengele run wild.
> I’ll take his word for it to be honest.
Like all the hundred other times he’s lied about things? If anything, just the way he treats his human employees, I’d not be surprised if the animals are treated worse than the raised concerns.
Like all the hundred other times he’s lied about things? If anything, just the way he treats his human employees, I’d not be surprised if the animals are treated worse than the raised concerns.
curious why you will take his word for it? given he gets paid to do and say those things
Mistreating animals is a multi-million dollar industry. People in power have been known to cater to those who can spend the most on lobbying efforts. Even if your representative doesn’t get influenced by lobby groups, there is a whole ideology disproportionately popular among the ruling class around lax government involvement. Representation in congress sits at one representative per 4-5 hundred thousand constituents, one of the lowest representation in the world. If your representative is holds opposite ideology from yours or if the majority in congress has the opposite ideology from you and your representative, you have little chance of changing an institution which is independent from congress. If you and your representative and majority of congress hold the same ideology, but the majority of senate or the president don’t, you have little chance of being heard.
No. It is childishly optimistic to thing we the people can change anything about this. Our best shot is complaining on social media and write articles in news magazines, but even that has limited results.
No. It is childishly optimistic to thing we the people can change anything about this. Our best shot is complaining on social media and write articles in news magazines, but even that has limited results.
(Mostly) Worked for Sinclair…
[deleted]
"The USDA employs 122 inspectors to inspect 11,785 facilities, ranging from zoos and breeders to labs, according to a Congressional Research Service report last July."
What? Jesus that's so absurd
What? Jesus that's so absurd
100 facilities per inspector doesn't seem absurd? That's roughly 2 days of inspection per year per facility.
Well it's not like a building inspection - how many animals are in each building? You have to assess them to see their welfare - on top of checking that the enclosures and practices are up to code.
Some practices might not get done in those days - and might not be reviewed. Imagine no animals has to be put down during these two days, there will be no actual review of that procedure - and so on.
In slaighterhouses in Canada, we have federal inspectors during all work hours but activists still film abuse happening.
Some practices might not get done in those days - and might not be reviewed. Imagine no animals has to be put down during these two days, there will be no actual review of that procedure - and so on.
In slaighterhouses in Canada, we have federal inspectors during all work hours but activists still film abuse happening.
I guess you can broadly split compliance work like this into two categories, spot checks and audits. The former where you're pseudo-randomly checking that they are following the rules, and punishing them where you aren't (taxes work like this), the latter where you are systematically checking that the rules have been followed (I believe building inspections work like this).
1 inspector/100 facilities seems within the realms of reason if you're doing spot checks. It's absurd if you think you need to be doing continuous audits.
It sounds like you're saying there's good reason to think the slaughterhouse business needs the latter (that there is a documented history of abuse despite them happening - I don't really know anything about the industry), but most industries seem to survive on spot checks.
I don't know much about the zoos and breeders that the USDS is inspecting either, maybe continuous auditing would be a good idea, but it doesn't seem absurd to think that spot checks are sufficient. Is there some particular reason to think that they're like slaughter houses and that spot checks are clearly insufficient?
1 inspector/100 facilities seems within the realms of reason if you're doing spot checks. It's absurd if you think you need to be doing continuous audits.
It sounds like you're saying there's good reason to think the slaughterhouse business needs the latter (that there is a documented history of abuse despite them happening - I don't really know anything about the industry), but most industries seem to survive on spot checks.
I don't know much about the zoos and breeders that the USDS is inspecting either, maybe continuous auditing would be a good idea, but it doesn't seem absurd to think that spot checks are sufficient. Is there some particular reason to think that they're like slaughter houses and that spot checks are clearly insufficient?
> systematically checking that the rules have been followed (I believe building inspections work like this)
For residential, building inspectors certainly don't work systematically, at least in the US.
When and what they check is pretty spotty.
For residential, building inspectors certainly don't work systematically, at least in the US.
When and what they check is pretty spotty.
I could be wrong about the example entirely, I've never actually been involved in that stage of construction (or most other stages).
My understanding of building inspections in Toronto, Canada was that they were supposed to be reasonable systematic and thorough even for houses, but I'm definitely not a reliable source. Even if my impression was right I definitely have no reason to assume it applies elsewhere.
Anyways, hopefully the point came across anyways even if the example was sub-optimal.
My understanding of building inspections in Toronto, Canada was that they were supposed to be reasonable systematic and thorough even for houses, but I'm definitely not a reliable source. Even if my impression was right I definitely have no reason to assume it applies elsewhere.
Anyways, hopefully the point came across anyways even if the example was sub-optimal.
I clarify because, at least in the US (Canadian laws may differ), afaik building inspection is buyer beware.
If an inspector checked something and if they noted the flaw then it would have been addressed. Or they could have just not checked, not noted, or missed it.
Same with home inspectors, who are under no legal liability except for the most gratuitous and obvious flaws.
Which is contrary to how most people assume the system works when they're buying a new-build house.
If an inspector checked something and if they noted the flaw then it would have been addressed. Or they could have just not checked, not noted, or missed it.
Same with home inspectors, who are under no legal liability except for the most gratuitous and obvious flaws.
Which is contrary to how most people assume the system works when they're buying a new-build house.
Full disclosure, I'm antispeciesist and an animal rights activist. - also, love your comment and spelling out both types.of inspections.
To me, industries that are responsible for the well being of animals are more similar to old persons homes, hospitals and kindergardens - they are responsible for the well being of individuals that can't care for themselves. Being at the mercy of the workers, the individuals need better protection than is afforded by spot inspections.
Another thing that should raise scrutiny in these context is that animal welfare costs money, and companies are there to maximise profits - which creates a perpetual tension between respecting animals rights and better/faster results/profits.
And a quote : Freedom is the right of all sentient beings - Optimus Prime
To me, industries that are responsible for the well being of animals are more similar to old persons homes, hospitals and kindergardens - they are responsible for the well being of individuals that can't care for themselves. Being at the mercy of the workers, the individuals need better protection than is afforded by spot inspections.
Another thing that should raise scrutiny in these context is that animal welfare costs money, and companies are there to maximise profits - which creates a perpetual tension between respecting animals rights and better/faster results/profits.
And a quote : Freedom is the right of all sentient beings - Optimus Prime
100 per year add travel time. Easy metrics to hit. Fyi im being sarcastic- thats a bananas amount add in travel time + paperwork + pretravel prep. Maybe every 3 years, maaaybe.
Labs, at least, are often clustered in geographic areas. Zoos are often near large metro areas with other places to inspect.
Breeders and remote zoo-like facilities are probably the most difficult to get to.
Breeders and remote zoo-like facilities are probably the most difficult to get to.
> Nineteen of the board’s 22 members were Neuralink employees as of late 2022, according to a company document reviewed by Reuters. The oversight board’s chair was the Neuralink executive who led the company’s animal-care program, and at least 11 other members were employees directly involved with animal care or research.
Employees controlling the board sounds highly unusual for most companies, but for maybe not for a moonshot company? Didn’t Zuckerberg negotiate total control of the FB board?
And aren’t most boards incentives linked to company performance?
I’m definitely concerned about the ethics for animal testing, but I’d never trust a company or board to regulate itself. That’s what the government and the law is for. If there are concerns the government should step in.
Employees controlling the board sounds highly unusual for most companies, but for maybe not for a moonshot company? Didn’t Zuckerberg negotiate total control of the FB board?
And aren’t most boards incentives linked to company performance?
I’m definitely concerned about the ethics for animal testing, but I’d never trust a company or board to regulate itself. That’s what the government and the law is for. If there are concerns the government should step in.
> institutional animal care and use committees
That's what they're talking about, not corporate governance. If you do animal experimentation, you have an independent board that reviews the protocols, etc., to ensure things are done ethically. Similar to an IRB with human experiments.
The heavy weighting towards employees isn't a sign that it was selected for its independence from the company.
That's what they're talking about, not corporate governance. If you do animal experimentation, you have an independent board that reviews the protocols, etc., to ensure things are done ethically. Similar to an IRB with human experiments.
The heavy weighting towards employees isn't a sign that it was selected for its independence from the company.
So how did the board if independent, end up electing company representatives?
The board isn't sui generous, it's established by the company. But if you're going about the selection process in good faith, you try to balance the membership so the decisions aren't driven by the interests of the company vs the ethics.
I'm not positively asserting that it was unethical, but prima face it doesn't look especially great.
I'm not positively asserting that it was unethical, but prima face it doesn't look especially great.
Isn’t it an ethics board, not a corporate board? So very different from FB?
bilvar(2)
justrealist(14)
I'm not going to get too worked up by a private company doing something that has received no complaints from the federal agency in charge of overseeing it. If you think the USDA's regulations are too lax, that's something that we the people can potentially change.