3 ms·

I can't tell if you're so anti-animal rights activist that you're defending what you see as a reasonable use of animals, OR if you're so pro-Elon that you're wi

by xracy 4y ago

I can't tell if you're so anti-animal rights activist that you're defending what you see as a reasonable use of animals, OR if you're so pro-Elon that you're willing to defend whatever. I'm reading you as the former. So let's take animals off the table. I work for a company, and we have a high-value limited resource that's well-regulated. Instead of doing methodical tests for teh product we're trying to develop with this resource, we've ruined 1500 samples of the resource. This seems unthinkable to me. Especially coming from an actual engineering with any kind of real-life resources. "Measure twice cut once" is the adage in anything with construction, because you don't want to needlessly waste any kind of resource. This is a software approach to hardware, and if they were destroying gold beyond repair, I get the weird sense you'd be less okay with it... > In all, the company has killed about 1,500 animals, including more than 280 sheep, pigs and monkeys, following experiments since 2018... The sources characterized that figure as a rough estimate because the company does not keep precise records on the number of animals tested and killed. It's even wilder to consider they don't actually know how many animals they've killed. On any basic construction project, you should be able to account for all of the valuable resources you used. It seems unthinkable to me that you wouldn't have the same level of accounting for living things especially given the regulations around it. But Elon don't love himself some regulations. I'm guessing you feel similarly from your other comments...

ckemere 4y ago
My annoyance is with the articles presentation. It leads to the kind of analogies that you're making. I think the most clarifying thought I've had is that people (and the article) are imagining that Neuralink is doing a clinical trial. Instead, they're developing at least 5 different bleeding edge technologies which are the needed precursor for making the device that one day might lead to a clinical trial. Imagine 5 teams with dozens of people working on different pieces that each require multiple rounds of in vivo testing. 1000 rodents in 4 years with 200 people all working independently is not particularly wild. And to clarify, "they don't know the number" is not accurate. Rather, the USDA requires exact reporting of the number of Animal Welfare Act protected animals (non rodents) and round numbers of rodents. These are published by the USDA. Neuralink may also report precise numbers as part of their annual report to NIH or AALAC, but these are not public. My frustration is that this is the scale of a small university's (like mine) research, and it's a shame to have actual mistakes linked to context-less numbers to make the situation appear bad.

by xracy 4y ago

ckemere 4y ago

My annoyance is with the articles presentation. It leads to the kind of analogies that you're making. I think the most clarifying thought I've had is that people (and the article) are imagining that Neuralink is doing a clinical trial. Instead, they're developing at least 5 different bleeding edge technologies which are the needed precursor for making the device that one day might lead to a clinical trial. Imagine 5 teams with dozens of people working on different pieces that each require multiple rounds of in vivo testing. 1000 rodents in 4 years with 200 people all working independently is not particularly wild. And to clarify, "they don't know the number" is not accurate. Rather, the USDA requires exact reporting of the number of Animal Welfare Act protected animals (non rodents) and round numbers of rodents. These are published by the USDA. Neuralink may also report precise numbers as part of their annual report to NIH or AALAC, but these are not public. My frustration is that this is the scale of a small university's (like mine) research, and it's a shame to have actual mistakes linked to context-less numbers to make the situation appear bad.