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 As

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. https://www.dropbox.com/s/kbwap1dj4e51mfe/2022-02-10%20PCRM%20USDA%20Complaint%20Re%20UC%20Davis%20and%20Neuralink%20%28with%20exhibits%29.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/kbwap1dj4e51mfe/2022-02-10%20PCRM%... 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.