Neuralink killed 1500 animals in its testing phase

[Catherine]

Neuralink is a project that would use a chip in the brain to allow a damaged person to do things. In theory, the blind could see and the paralyzed could walk.
The idea has great potential and could bring hope to many people.
However, the company has been rushing its tests on animals. This has led to the deaths of many more animals than were needed. It has also created questionable results. Many tests would need the be repeated.


https://globalnews.ca/news/9328626/elon-...ral-probe/

This technology is eventually going to happen. Rushing the research won't make it happen earlier. Needing to repeat tests because of questionable results is actually slower than doing it right the first time. Way too many animals died for no reason. Is this yet another project of Elon Musk that is in trouble. Probably.
If he can break Twitter in such a short time, I am sure he can break other things.
When that breaking things involves cruelty to animals someone needs to step in and control things.

[LPC]

(12-07-2022, 03:44 PM)Catherine Wrote: Is this yet another project of Elon Musk that is in trouble? Probably.
If he can break Twitter in such a short time, I am sure he can break other things.
When that breaking things involves cruelty to animals someone needs to step in and control things.

Elon Musk does not care about animal welfare in the slightest. He pushed the laboratories into rushed results which were botched and had to be repeated - thus unnecessarily doubling the number of animals used and subsequently killed. The test animals are always killed in order to analyse the results.

I am opposed to the use of animals for human research, as history has shown time and time again that the physiology of animals and humans is different, so the results from any one species (e.g. pigs, monkeys...) cannot be taken as an indication that a treatment will work for humans. In a few cases, such assumptions have led to disasters, such as thalidomide (where "safe" animal tests led to malformations of human babies). This is apart from humanitarian and moral objections to animal experimentation, which is another big issue.

This latest case, however, goes much further than the standard vivisection argument. A whole raft of issues are involved. I also have dark suspicions about the concept of implanting microchips into the brain. Who can guarantee that a rogue person or organisation, even a rogue country, might not use such microchips to control human behaviour?

[Catherine]

Quote:This latest case, however, goes much further than the standard vivisection argument. A whole raft of issues are involved. I also have dark suspicions about the concept of implanting microchips into the brain. Who can guarantee that a rogue person or organisation, even a rogue country, might not use such microchips to control human behaviour?

These are very valid objections to the whole implanted chip technology. There are so many ways it could be used badly.
It has the potential to help people who are paralyzed or suffering with things like ALS. I think there are possibilities for restoring sight and hearing.
You are right though, someone will want to use it to control people.

Humans have the capacity to do things, but we lack the maturity and ethical standards to do the right things.
The fact that the research was rushed, at such a cost to animal life, makes its motivations suspect.
It is not being done to help people. I presume profit is the motivation.

When will we admit that animal testing is not giving us valid information. We have done ourselves harm by relying on animal tests. Thalidomide is one of many mistakes we have made. We already know it doesn't work. We just won't admit it. Does that make us stupid or crazy. We are certainly stubborn.