Recent revelations surrounding Neuralink’s highly controversial experiments on monkeys have raised significant ethical concerns and sparked outrage within the scientific community. An investigative report has shed light on the disturbing details of a Neuralink experiment involving a female macaque, whose brain suffered severe damage, including a “deformed and ruptured” condition, leading to “severe neurological defects.”
The grisly experiment
The trials, conducted at the California National Primate Research Center (CNPRC) at UC Davis by Neuralink scientists, subjected a seven-year-old female macaque to a traumatic ordeal. Following the experiment, the macaque experienced severe cerebral swelling, which proved terminal. Shockingly, instead of alleviating the animal’s suffering, the overseeing scientist insisted on prolonging its torment for an additional 24 hours.
As reported, the macaque’s final hours were agonizing, marked by seizures, vomiting, loss of limb control, uncontrollable shaking, and difficulty breathing. A postmortem examination revealed that adhesive from the implant had caused inflammation in the brain’s cerebrospinal fluid-secreting region. The damage was so severe that the rear of the monkey’s brain protruded from its skull, although the exact cause of this cavity remains unclear.
Transparency vs secrecy
Ethical groups such as the Physicians Committee have taken legal action against UC Davis, demanding the immediate release of hundreds of photographs documenting Neuralink’s shockingly cruel brain implant experiments. They argue that, as a public institution, UC Davis has a moral and legal responsibility to uphold transparency. “Disclosure of the footage is of utmost importance because Neuralink actively misleads the public about, and downplays the absolutely horrifying nature of, these experiments,” an attorney representing the Physicians Committee in the lawsuit firmly stated.
Despite federal regulators acknowledging the macaque’s brain rupture as a violation of the US Animal Welfare Act, CNPRC took preemptive measures by self-reporting the violation to avoid potential legal repercussions. “If you want to split hairs,” an anonymous former Neuralink employee boldly declared, “the implant itself did not cause death. We sacrificed her to end her suffering.”
UC Davis has ardently defended its decision to keep the experiment photos classified, citing concerns that the public lacks the expertise to interpret them properly. Furthermore, they argue that releasing such photos could endanger scientists and deter them from conducting experiments involving animal testing.
Broader implications
The controversy surrounding Neuralink’s experiments extends beyond the organization itself. The Physicians Committee emphatically asserts that the public has a fundamental right to know the disturbing nature of any animal testing funded by taxpayers, emphasizing that transparency is not an option but a moral imperative. Critics argue that Neuralink’s persistent attempts to downplay the horrifically gruesome nature of its experiments have only fueled widespread public distrust.
Despite the negative publicity, Neuralink continues to move forward with human trials. However, the outcome of the Physician Committee’s lawsuit may cast a long shadow over these experiments, intensifying the scrutiny of ethical considerations and transparency in the realm of scientific research. As the heated debate over the treatment of animals in biomedical experiments continues to rage on, the actions of organizations like Neuralink and UC Davis serve as a stark reminder of the complex ethical dilemmas posed by scientific progress.
