Recently, Musk's Neuralink company has been embroiled in trouble again.
A nonprofit called PCRM accused Neuralink of cruelty to animals: the entire brain-computer interface experiment involved 23 experimental monkeys, 15 of whom had died.
Neuralink, funded by tech tycoon Elon Musk, can be said to have single-handedly pioneered the brain-computer interface and is the most well-known and technologically advanced company in the field. Previously, Neuralink shocked the world by cultivating a monkey "Pager" that could "brain-control" simple computer games. The company's ultimate goal is for people to implant brain-computer interfaces, and even everyone can have their own brain-computer interfaces.
Screenshot source: Neuralink
Just when many people were excited about the bright prospects shown in the video, unexpectedly, the news was soon poked out, 15 of the 23 experimental monkeys had died, and Neuralink itself made headlines because of animal cruelty.
Let's dive into Neuralink Labs and see what's really going on.
| Million-dollar laboratory, accused of animal cruelty "concentration camp"
Neuralink took Musk's $100 million investment in the early days of its establishment and set out to build its own animal breeding base, and in order not to affect the progress of research, it first cooperated with third-party animal breeding research institutions. UC Davis is one of Neuralink's collaborators. The Primate Research Center here is one of the best institutions in the research environment on the West Coast of the United States.
Neuralink gave UC Davis $1.4 million to charter a lab and supporting facilities dedicated to brain-computer interface testing. The collaboration began in 2017 and lasts until 2020 when Neuralink's self-operated laboratory is completed.
Since private companies were involved, the relevant experimental records could have been made private. But because UC Davis is a taxpayer-funded public school, it was "exploited" by PCRM, forcing it to publish more than 600 pages of experimental records...
These records seem to indicate that Neuralink's Brain-Computer Interface Lab has become the hardest hit area for animal cruelty and animal care neglect.
"Many (and possibly all) of the monkeys experienced great pain as a result of receiving highly invasive brain device implants, as well as not receiving proper animal care," PCRM wrote in a filing submitted to the Department of Agriculture.
"To develop what Neuralink and Musk call 'brain-computer interfaces,' the experimenters drilled holes in the animal's skulls and installed highly invasive implantable devices. These devices and related manipulations created repeated infections in the animals, harming the health of the animals and affecting the justice of the entire study. ”
Image credit: Jeff Miller/University of Wisconsin-Madison
The records provided by Neuralink and UC Davis describe a variety of inhuman treatment of macaques for experimental purposes under the project (the specific description is too bloody and exciting, here are just a few examples):
Some experimental monkeys underwent multiple interface implantation/removal procedures during their life cycle, causing damage to brain tissue and function, and to combat postoperative infection, the researchers used an overdose of antibiotics (Note: Antibiotic overuse is a typical negligent behavior in the field of animal care);
During one implantation operation, UC Davis's chief surgeon used a lethal dose of biocomposite adhesive, which was not reflected in the surgical records; later autopsy reports revealed that a large amount of adhesive remained on the surface of the monkey's brain;
A monkey (No. 5) transported from UC Davis to Neuralink's self-operated laboratory was frequently changed cages (among known sources of mental stress), resulting in significant weight loss; during neuralink's lab, researchers also misused drugs on it;
Some monkeys are tied up every day for experiments for up to five hours, resulting in serious psychological trauma and even self-harm;
For example, a female monkey (No. 15) underwent multiple self-harm behaviors after undergoing implant surgery, such as trying to pull out the interface, hitting the wall with her head, and so on. Observers also found that the female monkey had once held hands with another caged "cellmate"...
In addition, in the early days of the investigation, UC Davis also refused to provide the true number of experimental animals for cross-verification, and later when forced to provide information, it also concealed it in an attempt to fool through...
UC Davis pointed out that the animal research procedures of the entire brain-computer interface laboratory have been strictly reviewed by relevant professionals and are in line with the spirit of the provisions of the ANIMAL Welfare Act for laboratory animals in the United States.
However, PCRM pointed out that Neuralink/UC Davis was not a problem with the procedures, but did not implement the procedures, deviated from a series of animal protection rules and regulations that should have been followed, and there were situations such as surgical negligence, caregiver negligence, and lack of records.
Records show that during neuralink and UC Davis' collaboration, at least 23 experimental monkeys were on the project, of which at least 15 had died. As for the cause of death, in addition to the animal abuse alleged by PCRM, euthanasia surgery, which Neuralink called "legal.".
| Neuralink responded: Monkeys are happy with us
After the controversy broke out, Neuralink chose to respond by posting on its official website.
In the second sentence at the beginning of the article, Neuralink directly pointed out the biggest loophole in the whole question: the other party is extreme animal protection.
"Several recent articles have made allegations about Neuralink's treatment of research animals at UC Davis. Notably, the allegations come from a group of people who are completely opposed to the use of animals in research. Currently, all new medical devices and treatments must be tested on animals before they can be tested in humans. Neuralink is not unique in this regard. ”
Neuralink is right on this point.
Its opponent in this incident, PCRM, whose full name is Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, is a well-known animal insurance agency, and it belongs to the same foundation as PETA, which is widely criticized as an extreme animal protection organization, shares a source of funding, is very closely linked, and has been regarded as a "thug" of PETA. The American Medical Association (AMA), an association of serious medical professionals, has repeatedly criticized PCRM for seriously interfering with the normal use of laboratory animals by medical researchers.
Screenshot of the official PCRM website
Neuralink also responded to the various animal cruelties and caregivers mentioned by PCRM:
First of all, these experimental monkeys are not completely healthy in their own right, and most of them have "pre-existing conditions", which means that they have a variety of diseases and physical conditions before coming to the laboratory.
Moreover, as a group of animals, some conflicts between monkeys may lead to physical disability, and the monkeys reported in the laboratory have various so-called broken fingers, "self-harm" and other problems, which are the results of social behavior within the normal range.
And, Neuralink insists, such injuries never occurred during the period when the monkeys were being cared for at UC Davis Laboratories.
Even so, Neuralink/UC Davis has an unshirkable responsibility for the death of some of the subject monkeys due to human negligence:
Neuralink acknowledges that at least one monkey died of overuse of the aforementioned biocomplex binder during the program' existence, and four other monkeys were euthanized by animal care experts due to infections and deteriorating health conditions from implanted interface devices.
However, things seem to improve after neuralink's self-built incubation facility was completed.
The company claims that the new facilities meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Law in terms of animal housing, diet, care, social networking, etc., and even exceed the standards that many zoos can meet. In particular, neuralink breeding facilities provide experimental animals, including monkeys and pigs, with abundant food, complex and varied environments, and a variety of enrichment props that allow animals to show the closest possible nature to nature.
"After the inauguration of the self-operated laboratory and animal breeding facility, we took over a part of the experimental monkeys that were not implanted. Among them was Pager, which was later implanted into our device and achieved excellent brain-computer interface performance under the condition of unconstrained autonomous activity," Neuralink wrote in a response article.
In the response article, Neuralink provides a number of pictures and captions showing how happy laboratory animals live in their facilities:
The fertile environment provided by the breeding facility for the experimental monkeys Image source: Neuralink Here are these two photos of the experimental piglet Gertrude:
Experimental pig "Gertrude" free to explore and receive massage Image source: Neuralink
Even, these experimental animals can "choose for themselves" whether to participate in the experiment or not.
Neuralink claims that researchers will use a variety of ways to motivate animals to participate in experiments, and that animals that are not interested will not be forced, nor will they be restricted to their water and food and living environment.
Neuralink will humanely release animals at the end of a predetermined experimental period, even if they did not participate in the experiment during the period. For macaques in particular, the company will build its own protected areas for release.
| Brain-computer interface, is it too "fast"?
In this incident, both sides insisted on their own opinions, both believing that the other party was too much and that they had done nothing wrong.
Does Neuralink/UC Davis exactly involve animal cruelty? The resulting controversy actually has a lot of room for interpretation.
From the accused's point of view, after all, the brain-computer interface is an extremely cutting-edge technology, there is almost no template to refer to, and researchers also need to constantly try to invent new rules and regulations to achieve innovation in brain-computer interface technology. In this process, accidents and accidents are absolutely inevitable.
From the accuser's point of view, according to the trial records provided by Neuralink/UC Davis, the experimenters really did not provide the highest level of care for the laboratory animals and failed to implement the safety procedures of animal experimentation 100% - in this case, there is really nothing wrong with their cruelty to animals.
Although it is true that PCRM is not a clean body, the doubts it raises should not be ignored.
There is a more reliable saying in pet breeding circles: if a person behaves badly with animals, he is not a good person/trustworthy person. The same idea can be applied to this incident:
If, as alleged, the brain-computer interface project team has made all sorts of serious oversights in the management of laboratory animals— how can we trust Neuralink to protect the safety and mental health of test subjects when it conducts future human clinical trials?
Of course, according to reasonable speculation, Neuralink's various abuses and poor care for experimental monkeys at present must also have reasons behind the monkeys' inability to communicate normally with the caregivers.
In the future, when entering human testing, there are various abnormal situations, and if you take 10,000 steps back, at least human subjects can accurately express them. And, people are not kept in cages and are not "forced" to undergo surgery like monkeys, resulting in subsequent psychological trauma...
However, make a big opening in the skull, and then directly install a chip connected to the cortex nerve ... Whether the subject of the operation is a monkey or a human, the risk of postoperative infection is high.
In 2020, we reported on an important event in terms of brain-computer interface: the NeuroLife "neural bypass" research team at the Battle Institute published a blockbuster paper in the journal Cell that "reversed" a human subject's high paraplegia through brain-computer interface technology, allowing him to largely restore motor function and touch below the arm.
In fact, at that time, the research team specifically mentioned that the surgical safety risk of the subjects installing brain-computer interfaces was still very high. To be able to achieve this major technological breakthrough, the lucky ingredient can not be ruled out...
In the same year, Musk also held a unique Neuralink conference, announcing that in the future, everyone can have their own brain-computer interface device.
He also announced that in the future, automatic surgery will be performed with surgical robots (see picture below), which can be completed in no more than 1 hour, when users can "come to the operation in the morning and go home in the afternoon", and even there will be no bleeding during the process...
"We have obtained fda permission for human experimentation," Musk said.
Musk is an absolute tech optimist, after all, he built Tesla, the world's highest-selling electric car brand, realized the scale commercialization of recyclable launch vehicles for the first time, and hung Internet satellites in the sky... As for brain-computer interfaces, I am afraid that in his opinion, like all other technologies, they will inevitably be achievable in the future.
I just hope he can remember that if there is a problem with the brain-computer interface technology, it is not the property that is lost, but the lives that are lost.