4 ms·

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

by 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.

Dylan16807 3y ago
My understanding is that the existing rules require a lot more pre-human testing than is necessary if your only goal is a good estimate of the danger level. Trying to get closer to that amount, and risking more people, might be a bad idea but I would not call it evil.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
It seems that you're discounting the possibility that this neurosurgeon thinks that the procedure and technology is sufficiently safe to move to human work in an ethical manner.
- Veserv 3y ago
  Yeah, well the FDA does not think so and they have a pretty good track record on both safety and expedience when it matters as seen with the expedited COVID vaccine testing. Also, it is not like this is even new technology that requires bespoke safety analysis. There are tons of companies making intracranial implants to support brain computer interaction in human clinical testing and in deployment generally. Here [1] is one in 2016 of a man controlling a robotic arm to shake Obama’s hand with sensory feedback. In contrast, from what I have read Neuralink has used and killed over 10x the average number of animal test subjects and still failed to adequately characterize and reduce the risks to the standard level that literally dozens or hundreds of other researchers achieve routinely. They should ostensibly have 10x the data and experience yet they have failed to achieve even the minimal standard for the easiest step. So forgive me if I trust the FDA and their rules written in blood over the student who wants the test to be easier. [1] https://youtu.be/rqD-I1ehf5E https://youtu.be/rqD-I1ehf5E
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think you are so blinded by your animosity that you can't parse the quote you provided >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.” Key parts are (1) if it were legal, (2) if FDA approves, (3) some experimentation You somehow read this as saying they think the FDA is wrong and that they want to do risky and dangerous testing in humans today, which is not at all in the statement. Furthermore, you go on about FDA rules born in blood. This is not at all the reality. The type, quantity, or nature of preclinical testing required by the FDA is incredibly subjective. Sometimes it is needed, sometimes not. the threshold for "good enough" is also incredibly subjective and not some hard line.
    - Veserv 3y ago
      “We do animal research because we have to. There is no other way around it. 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.” There I added some context. He said they do animal testing because they have no other choice as the FDA has said such testing is illegal on humans. If, however, the laws were changed and it were no longer illegal then they would be excited to do it on willing humans. The law changing does not affect the morality of the underlying act. The underlying act is immoral, that is why it is currently banned. Saying you would do it, without any concern for the underlying morality, just because they unban it is textbook unethical. I mean seriously, if somebody said: “If tomorrow laws were changed and the government said okay you can murder people who deserve it that would be a very interesting option.” would you also think this person is a fine morally upstanding person because they said (1) if it were legal, (2) if the government approves, (3) people who deserve it. No, because that would be a comically stupid argument as it is obvious to any observer that their moral compass is being guided purely by what it legal and not by what is ethical and they would totally murder people if it was allowed.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago

by Veserv 3y ago

Dylan16807 3y ago

My understanding is that the existing rules require a lot more pre-human testing than is necessary if your only goal is a good estimate of the danger level. Trying to get closer to that amount, and risking more people, might be a bad idea but I would not call it evil.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

It seems that you're discounting the possibility that this neurosurgeon thinks that the procedure and technology is sufficiently safe to move to human work in an ethical manner.

Veserv 3y ago
Yeah, well the FDA does not think so and they have a pretty good track record on both safety and expedience when it matters as seen with the expedited COVID vaccine testing. Also, it is not like this is even new technology that requires bespoke safety analysis. There are tons of companies making intracranial implants to support brain computer interaction in human clinical testing and in deployment generally. Here [1] is one in 2016 of a man controlling a robotic arm to shake Obama’s hand with sensory feedback. In contrast, from what I have read Neuralink has used and killed over 10x the average number of animal test subjects and still failed to adequately characterize and reduce the risks to the standard level that literally dozens or hundreds of other researchers achieve routinely. They should ostensibly have 10x the data and experience yet they have failed to achieve even the minimal standard for the easiest step. So forgive me if I trust the FDA and their rules written in blood over the student who wants the test to be easier. [1] https://youtu.be/rqD-I1ehf5E https://youtu.be/rqD-I1ehf5E
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think you are so blinded by your animosity that you can't parse the quote you provided >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.” Key parts are (1) if it were legal, (2) if FDA approves, (3) some experimentation You somehow read this as saying they think the FDA is wrong and that they want to do risky and dangerous testing in humans today, which is not at all in the statement. Furthermore, you go on about FDA rules born in blood. This is not at all the reality. The type, quantity, or nature of preclinical testing required by the FDA is incredibly subjective. Sometimes it is needed, sometimes not. the threshold for "good enough" is also incredibly subjective and not some hard line.
  - Veserv 3y ago
    “We do animal research because we have to. There is no other way around it. 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.” There I added some context. He said they do animal testing because they have no other choice as the FDA has said such testing is illegal on humans. If, however, the laws were changed and it were no longer illegal then they would be excited to do it on willing humans. The law changing does not affect the morality of the underlying act. The underlying act is immoral, that is why it is currently banned. Saying you would do it, without any concern for the underlying morality, just because they unban it is textbook unethical. I mean seriously, if somebody said: “If tomorrow laws were changed and the government said okay you can murder people who deserve it that would be a very interesting option.” would you also think this person is a fine morally upstanding person because they said (1) if it were legal, (2) if the government approves, (3) people who deserve it. No, because that would be a comically stupid argument as it is obvious to any observer that their moral compass is being guided purely by what it legal and not by what is ethical and they would totally murder people if it was allowed.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago