8 ms·

This article and others are most certainly just baseless hit pieces. They have shown up before, and seem to be extreme animal activists leveraging anti-Musk sen

This article and others are most certainly just baseless hit pieces. They have shown up before, and seem to be extreme animal activists leveraging anti-Musk sentiment. A neurosurgeon at Neurallink was just on Huberman Lab. He discussed, in detail: why they do the kind of animal testing they do, the humane parts, inhumane practices, the internal culture. I’ll take his word for it to be honest.

Veserv 3y ago
In the interview you mention [1] at 1:27:20 “If tomorrow laws were changed and the FDA said okay you can do some of this early experimentation in willing human participants that would be a very interesting option I think there would be a lot of people who would step up.” Holy shit that is a terrifying opinion for the head neurosurgeon at Neuralink to have. He thinks it is morally acceptable to experiment on humans with untested medical procedures that have demonstrably killed at least dozens of animal subjects and using processes that have resulted in inserting the wrong fucking implants in animal subjects. That is not merely immoral, that is capital E Evil. If that is the sort of person they keep as the head of neurosurgery then I too will take his word for it and say they should be shut down and entire leadership team banned from management in any medical research as they have no business designing processes that may impact the lives of humans or other creatures when they have such a callous disregard for those same lives. https://youtu.be/3ZGItIAUQmI https://youtu.be/3ZGItIAUQmI
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Letting people volunteer for something dangerous is capital E Evil?
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    No it's the human experimentation part that's evil not "letting people volunteer."
    - Veserv 3y ago
      Also the fact that it is structurally almost impossible for a layperson to give informed consent on a dangerous, highly experimental, early stage medical procedure, let alone a elective, non-medically necessary procedure. We have rules about human clinical testing for literally that reason.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        Why can't they give informed consent? A layperson can understand a percent chance of grievous injury or death.
        Veserv 3y ago
        They do not know the percent chance of death during early experimentation. They literally do not understand the procedure well enough to estimate the effects with sufficient confidence for it to be acceptable to do in human subjects. That is why it is called early stage and why we have animal testing, to establish these parameters as best we can for it to be acceptable to attempt on humans. This is literally the blood the human clinical testing rules around consenting to procedures is written in.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        And once they do enough animal testing, they can figure out a reasonable estimate for the danger. And they've probably done enough for that. The real barrier here is whether it's considered safe enough to let people volunteer, not just whether they can estimate the level of safety. There's a big range of experiments where informed consent is possible but it's not allowed because it's too dangerous. I think this testing is probably in that range. And anything in that range is not a matter of "capital E Evil". Evil is when you're not getting consent, or similar.
        Veserv 3y ago
        Yes, when they do enough animal testing. That is literally not the case the head neurosurgeon is postulating. Immediately before the quote they say that animal testing is the only available option during early stage. They have no other choice which is why they do it, but if the FDA allowed human experimentation during such early stages it would be a interesting option to pursue in lieu of animal testing. That is literally saying that if they had a procedure that is not ready for humans under existing rules, they would totally do it if the FDA stopped having rules against it.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  You are putting words in his mouth and then getting upset about them.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    His quoted words are him frankly admitting to wanting and being willing to do the sort of human experimentation universally prohibited by medical ethics. He is saying he's only being stopped by the oversight mechanisms that are in place to stop exactly that. I do find that frightening and don't see what you and other commenters gain from downplaying the seriousness of that intention.
    - jerkstate 3y ago
      there are many countries where assisted suicide is becoming more widely accepted. Many people are willing organ donors and blood donors. Everyone and their bodies absolutely must be treated with the utmost respect, but for many, the highest respect is to be part of even the smallest iota of scientific progress.
      - giraffe_lady 3y ago
        Y'all are fucking scary I'm just extremely thankful we actually have rules of medical ethics that are enforced rather than letting you and this wannabe Mengele run wild.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      That's where I think you were putting words in his mouth. I don't think they are saying that they would want to do anything unethical or especially dangerous. That's connotation that you are inserting
      - Veserv 3y ago
        Wanting to do early experimentation, that is currently only allowed to occur on animals due to safety concerns, on humans is definitionally unethical and especially dangerous. We banned it because it is unethical and especially dangerous in basically every case. There are literal decades of experience and piles of bodies supporting that point. Obviously there are some exceptions, but whatever Neuralink is doing is not one of them. Their technology and any benefits it might bring is at best wholly speculative and would require years to reduce to practice. There is exactly zero compelling reason why they should be given a pass on human testing safety. Suggesting that it would be acceptable to replace their animal testing with human testing as long as the volunteers were willing is about as “open and shut” unethical as you can get.
- wildzzz 3y ago
  Experimenting on animals that cannot give informed consent is ok but not when there's a human involved? Arguably, I don't think that humans should get paid for what is essentially an elective surgery experiment when there's a real possibility of death. It should be completely volunteered and compensation should come in the form of a hospital bed, meals, and post-op care.
  - xorbax 3y ago
    Jesus. So the researchers "benefiting" should keep the volunteers alive, but actual compensation for time and suffering is somehow dismissable? I think the people who say animals are sentient beings deserving of respect are less horrible
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      The same thing happens with organ donations. And sex work, sometimes. As a society, there are things we don't want people to be coerced into via need for money. Trying hard enough to avoid that coercion gets in the way of fair compensation for those things. If you can solve that problem (and not by just saying "universal basic income" very loudly) they'll probably give you the Nobel for economics.
darth_avocado 3y ago
> I’ll take his word for it to be honest. Like all the hundred other times he’s lied about things? If anything, just the way he treats his human employees, I’d not be surprised if the animals are treated worse than the raised concerns.
- jemmyw 3y ago
  Did you read the comment? He's talking about a neurosurgeon, not Musk.
  - foderking 3y ago
    [flagged]
hackernewds 3y ago
curious why you will take his word for it? given he gets paid to do and say those things

Veserv 3y ago

In the interview you mention [1] at 1:27:20 “If tomorrow laws were changed and the FDA said okay you can do some of this early experimentation in willing human participants that would be a very interesting option I think there would be a lot of people who would step up.” Holy shit that is a terrifying opinion for the head neurosurgeon at Neuralink to have. He thinks it is morally acceptable to experiment on humans with untested medical procedures that have demonstrably killed at least dozens of animal subjects and using processes that have resulted in inserting the wrong fucking implants in animal subjects. That is not merely immoral, that is capital E Evil. If that is the sort of person they keep as the head of neurosurgery then I too will take his word for it and say they should be shut down and entire leadership team banned from management in any medical research as they have no business designing processes that may impact the lives of humans or other creatures when they have such a callous disregard for those same lives. https://youtu.be/3ZGItIAUQmI https://youtu.be/3ZGItIAUQmI

Dylan16807 3y ago
Letting people volunteer for something dangerous is capital E Evil?
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  No it's the human experimentation part that's evil not "letting people volunteer."
  - Veserv 3y ago
    Also the fact that it is structurally almost impossible for a layperson to give informed consent on a dangerous, highly experimental, early stage medical procedure, let alone a elective, non-medically necessary procedure. We have rules about human clinical testing for literally that reason.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Why can't they give informed consent? A layperson can understand a percent chance of grievous injury or death.
      - Veserv 3y ago
        They do not know the percent chance of death during early experimentation. They literally do not understand the procedure well enough to estimate the effects with sufficient confidence for it to be acceptable to do in human subjects. That is why it is called early stage and why we have animal testing, to establish these parameters as best we can for it to be acceptable to attempt on humans. This is literally the blood the human clinical testing rules around consenting to procedures is written in.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        And once they do enough animal testing, they can figure out a reasonable estimate for the danger. And they've probably done enough for that. The real barrier here is whether it's considered safe enough to let people volunteer, not just whether they can estimate the level of safety. There's a big range of experiments where informed consent is possible but it's not allowed because it's too dangerous. I think this testing is probably in that range. And anything in that range is not a matter of "capital E Evil". Evil is when you're not getting consent, or similar.
        Veserv 3y ago
        Yes, when they do enough animal testing. That is literally not the case the head neurosurgeon is postulating. Immediately before the quote they say that animal testing is the only available option during early stage. They have no other choice which is why they do it, but if the FDA allowed human experimentation during such early stages it would be a interesting option to pursue in lieu of animal testing. That is literally saying that if they had a procedure that is not ready for humans under existing rules, they would totally do it if the FDA stopped having rules against it.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
You are putting words in his mouth and then getting upset about them.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  His quoted words are him frankly admitting to wanting and being willing to do the sort of human experimentation universally prohibited by medical ethics. He is saying he's only being stopped by the oversight mechanisms that are in place to stop exactly that. I do find that frightening and don't see what you and other commenters gain from downplaying the seriousness of that intention.
  - jerkstate 3y ago
    there are many countries where assisted suicide is becoming more widely accepted. Many people are willing organ donors and blood donors. Everyone and their bodies absolutely must be treated with the utmost respect, but for many, the highest respect is to be part of even the smallest iota of scientific progress.
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      Y'all are fucking scary I'm just extremely thankful we actually have rules of medical ethics that are enforced rather than letting you and this wannabe Mengele run wild.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    That's where I think you were putting words in his mouth. I don't think they are saying that they would want to do anything unethical or especially dangerous. That's connotation that you are inserting
    - Veserv 3y ago
      Wanting to do early experimentation, that is currently only allowed to occur on animals due to safety concerns, on humans is definitionally unethical and especially dangerous. We banned it because it is unethical and especially dangerous in basically every case. There are literal decades of experience and piles of bodies supporting that point. Obviously there are some exceptions, but whatever Neuralink is doing is not one of them. Their technology and any benefits it might bring is at best wholly speculative and would require years to reduce to practice. There is exactly zero compelling reason why they should be given a pass on human testing safety. Suggesting that it would be acceptable to replace their animal testing with human testing as long as the volunteers were willing is about as “open and shut” unethical as you can get.
wildzzz 3y ago
Experimenting on animals that cannot give informed consent is ok but not when there's a human involved? Arguably, I don't think that humans should get paid for what is essentially an elective surgery experiment when there's a real possibility of death. It should be completely volunteered and compensation should come in the form of a hospital bed, meals, and post-op care.
- xorbax 3y ago
  Jesus. So the researchers "benefiting" should keep the volunteers alive, but actual compensation for time and suffering is somehow dismissable? I think the people who say animals are sentient beings deserving of respect are less horrible
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    The same thing happens with organ donations. And sex work, sometimes. As a society, there are things we don't want people to be coerced into via need for money. Trying hard enough to avoid that coercion gets in the way of fair compensation for those things. If you can solve that problem (and not by just saying "universal basic income" very loudly) they'll probably give you the Nobel for economics.

darth_avocado 3y ago

> I’ll take his word for it to be honest. Like all the hundred other times he’s lied about things? If anything, just the way he treats his human employees, I’d not be surprised if the animals are treated worse than the raised concerns.

jemmyw 3y ago
Did you read the comment? He's talking about a neurosurgeon, not Musk.
- foderking 3y ago
  [flagged]

hackernewds 3y ago

curious why you will take his word for it? given he gets paid to do and say those things