Elon Musk’s brain chip company faces legal action from animal rights group
Neuralink, the biotech company founded by Elon Musk, is being sued by an animal rights group over its experiments with monkeys. The company, which aims to create a wireless brain-computer interface that can enable humans to communicate with machines, is accused of violating animal welfare laws and misleading investors and the public about the safety and efficacy of its device.
What did Neuralink do with monkeys?
Neuralink claims that it has successfully implanted wireless chips in the brains of monkeys and that they can use them to play video games with their minds. In April 2021, Neuralink released a video of Pager, a nine-year-old macaque, playing Pong on a computer screen without using a joystick. The company said that Pager had two Neuralink devices implanted in his motor cortex, the part of the brain that controls movement and that they could record and stimulate his brain activity wirelessly. Neuralink also said that it had trained Pager to use a joystick to move a cursor on the screen and that it had used a machine learning algorithm to decode his neural signals and predict his intended hand movements. Then, Neuralink said that it had disconnected the joystick and that Pager was able to control the cursor with his mind alone.Neuralink’s founder and CEO, Elon Musk, said that the goal of the project was to create a brain-computer interface that could enable humans to communicate with machines, and potentially enhance their cognitive abilities. He also said that Neuralink planned to start human trials in 2022 and that it had received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct a feasibility study.
What are the allegations against Neuralink?
However, Neuralink’s animal testing has also raised serious ethical and legal questions, as several reports have revealed that many monkeys died or suffered during the experiments.In September 2021, WIRED published an investigation based on public records and interviews, which showed that at least 12 monkeys had been euthanized after receiving Neuralink implants at the University of California, Davis (UC Davis), where Neuralink was conducting its primate research at the time. The records also contained graphic descriptions of the monkeys’ conditions, such as bleeding, infections, seizures, paralysis, and self-mutilation. The investigation also found that Neuralink had violated several animal welfare regulations, such as failing to provide adequate veterinary care, monitoring, and enrichment for the monkeys.
In response to the WIRED report, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a nonprofit group that advocates for ending animal testing, sent letters to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the FDA, asking them to investigate Neuralink for potential securities fraud and animal cruelty.
The PCRM claimed that Musk had lied about the cause of the monkeys’ deaths and that he had misled investors and the public about the safety and marketability of Neuralink’s device.
The PCRM also said that Neuralink’s animal testing was not necessary, as there were alternative methods to test the device, such as using human volunteers or computer simulations.
In September 2021, the PCRM filed a lawsuit against Neuralink in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking an injunction to stop Neuralink from conducting further animal experiments, and a declaration that Neuralink had violated the federal Animal Welfare Act and the California Business and Professions Code. The PCRM also requested that the court order Neuralink to surrender all the monkeys in its possession to an accredited sanctuary, and to pay damages and legal fees.
How did Neuralink and Musk respond?
Neuralink and Musk have denied the allegations of animal cruelty and securities fraud, and have defended their animal testing as ethical and necessary. Neuralink said that it had followed all the relevant regulations and protocols and that it had obtained the approval of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) at UC Davis for its experiments. Neuralink also said that it had provided the monkeys with the best possible care and enrichment and that it had minimized their suffering and stress. Neuralink said that it had terminated its contract with UC Davis in June 2021 and that it had moved its primate research to a new facility in Nevada, where it had built a state-of-the-art monkey habitat.Musk said that the WIRED report was “false and misleading”, and that the PCRM was “a PETA-like organization” that was “trying to extort money from Neuralink”. He also said that the PCRM had “no credibility” and that it was “motivated by an anti-science agenda”. He said that Neuralink’s device was “safe and effective”, and that it had the potential to help millions of people with neurological disorders, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and paralysis. He also said that Neuralink’s monkey experiments were “essential” for advancing the science and technology of brain-computer interfaces and that they were “done with the utmost care and respect for the animals”.
What are the implications of the lawsuit?
The lawsuit is the latest challenge for Neuralink, which has faced criticism and skepticism from experts and regulators over its claims and goals. The company has been accused of overselling the capabilities and benefits of its device, and of underestimating the risks and challenges of implanting and interfacing with the human brain. The company has also been questioned about its transparency and accountability, as it has not published any peer-reviewed papers or data on its animal or human trials. The company has also been criticized for its lack of diversity and inclusion, as it has been reported that it has a predominantly male and white workforce and that it has fostered a culture of sexism and harassment.
The lawsuit could have significant consequences for Neuralink, as it could delay or derail its plans to start human trials and damage its reputation and credibility. The lawsuit could also expose Neuralink to further legal actions from other animal rights groups, investors, or potential customers. The lawsuit could also affect the public perception and acceptance of brain-computer interfaces, as it could raise ethical and social concerns about the use and abuse of such technology.
The lawsuit is expected to be a long and complex legal battle, as both sides have strong arguments and evidence to support their claims. The outcome of the lawsuit could have a major impact on the future of Neuralink, and the field of brain-computer interfaces in general.
Thank
you for reading.
Best,
Nexa-Hub