4 ms·
> Nineteen of the board’s 22 members were Neuralink employees as of late 2022, according to a company document reviewed by Reuters. The oversight board’s chair
by awb 3y ago
> Nineteen of the board’s 22 members were Neuralink employees as of late 2022, according to a company document reviewed by Reuters. The oversight board’s chair was the Neuralink executive who led the company’s animal-care program, and at least 11 other members were employees directly involved with animal care or research.
Employees controlling the board sounds highly unusual for most companies, but for maybe not for a moonshot company? Didn’t Zuckerberg negotiate total control of the FB board?
And aren’t most boards incentives linked to company performance?
I’m definitely concerned about the ethics for animal testing, but I’d never trust a company or board to regulate itself. That’s what the government and the law is for. If there are concerns the government should step in.
- elil17 3y agoIsn’t it an ethics board, not a corporate board? So very different from FB?
- meepmorp 3y ago> institutional animal care and use committees That's what they're talking about, not corporate governance. If you do animal experimentation, you have an independent board that reviews the protocols, etc., to ensure things are done ethically. Similar to an IRB with human experiments. The heavy weighting towards employees isn't a sign that it was selected for its independence from the company.
- hackernewds 3y agoSo how did the board if independent, end up electing company representatives?
- meepmorp 3y agoThe board isn't sui generous, it's established by the company. But if you're going about the selection process in good faith, you try to balance the membership so the decisions aren't driven by the interests of the company vs the ethics. I'm not positively asserting that it was unethical, but prima face it doesn't look especially great.