From their description of the complaint[1], it appears the glue used is known to be toxic to nerve tissue and should not have been used on an animal's brain. The description of the consequences for the monkeys is quite hard to read (especially given what we know about their mental and social capabilities) and it certainly seems to me to warrant investigation to determine whether it was caused unnecessarily.
>The company’s statement does not change the fact that monkeys used by Neuralink at UC Davis had portions of their skulls removed and devices screwed to their heads, nor that Neuralink used a substance called “BioGlue,” which was not approved for use in these experiments and has been widely known to be toxic to nerve tissue since at least 2001. BioGlue came into contact with the surface of at least two monkeys' brains, causing damage and hemorrhaging; one monkey suffered for days after this damage.
...
>The “lead surgeon” who was performing craniotomies and electrode implantation on a monkey, “had concerns about the void in between the two implants and applied Bioglue to fill the dead space.” Later, a necropsy revealed that the monkey had BioGlue on the surface of his brain. There was no mention of BioGlue being applied in the surgical record for this procedure, indicating poor and possibly noncompliant recordkeeping by lab personnel. BioGlue was never an approved substance for use in surgery in the approved protocol.
Thanks, but after a brief read of the 716 page complaint it appears that all of the allegations come from self reported compliance documents for the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science and contracts in attempts to comply with the ethical treatment of animals.
The expectation with animal experimentation isn't that everything goes smoothly, or even that all suffering is avoided in exchange for the information that will result in scientific advancement and safety for humans. The expectation is that there isn't undue suffering caused, and an ethics review board deems that the exchange and suffering paid by the animals is "worth it".
It's an uncomfortable reality for sure, and I would not want to be one of those monkeys, even without suffering, meeting an untimely death in service of human knowledge, but I recognise the trade off and it seems like the complainant doesn't have any extra evidence that there are systematic abuses of ethic review procedures and animal welfare standards.
That said, transparency is good and if there is substance to the claim that they Neuralink or UC Davis) are causing undue suffering then I wish them the best of luck fixing it.
Thanks for the details. In this case, if the allegations are actually true, and they accidentally used Bioglue on brain tissue, it seems like a fine is in order for the UC Davis lab. But does it really warrant an investigation of this magnitude? Why couldn't this be handled at the California state level?
>The company’s statement does not change the fact that monkeys used by Neuralink at UC Davis had portions of their skulls removed and devices screwed to their heads, nor that Neuralink used a substance called “BioGlue,” which was not approved for use in these experiments and has been widely known to be toxic to nerve tissue since at least 2001. BioGlue came into contact with the surface of at least two monkeys' brains, causing damage and hemorrhaging; one monkey suffered for days after this damage.
...
>The “lead surgeon” who was performing craniotomies and electrode implantation on a monkey, “had concerns about the void in between the two implants and applied Bioglue to fill the dead space.” Later, a necropsy revealed that the monkey had BioGlue on the surface of his brain. There was no mention of BioGlue being applied in the surgical record for this procedure, indicating poor and possibly noncompliant recordkeeping by lab personnel. BioGlue was never an approved substance for use in surgery in the approved protocol.
1: https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/animals-in-medical-rese...