3 ms·

> “If you want to split hairs,” a former employee tells WIRED, “the implant itself did not cause death. We sacrificed her to end her suffering.” What an awful

> “If you want to split hairs,” a former employee tells WIRED, “the implant itself did not cause death. We sacrificed her to end her suffering.” What an awfully stupid way to think. "I didn't kill her your honor, I sacrificed her to prevent her suffering from the bullet wound." > As it is a public records law that UC Davis is fighting, its arguments against greater transparency are centered around what’s best for the public. According to the school's attorneys, that means the public should not see images of Neuralink’s work. "What we did is so horrific that we can't tell you, because you might get violent about it. So don't worry about it, don't ask, and keep giving us money."

worthless-trash 3y ago
Not apologizing or justifying the event with the monkeys, I've had to put down animals that have broken their hind legs, damaged intestines and been gnawed at by local dingo (or wild dog) populations. I _could_ have kept that sheep or cow alive, but the quality of life would be so low that it wouldn't be cruelty. There is a certain point where the compassionate thing is to terminate the life. I imagine some researcher was in the very same position, they may not have been the cause, and they could save the animal but at that point its not going to have any life that isn't all torture for every day of the rest of its life. I kind of envy people who have never had to make these kinds of choices. The fact that it was this bad from a lab procedure makes the situation even more saddening.
- WesolyKubeczek 3y ago
  The crucial difference is that it wasn’t you breaking their hind legs, damaging their intestines, and/or gnawing at them in the first place.
  - worthless-trash 3y ago
    Thats true, I can imagine the poor lab tech who didnt make that mistake either having to make the tough call.
chriskanan 3y ago
Sacrificed is a term commonly used in biology and neuroscience, so the person quoted us just using specific jargon to their field: https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/07/the-surprising-history-of-scientific-researchers-using-the-word-sacrifice-to-refer-to-lab-animals.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/07/the-surprising-hist... I'm sure the photos will look terrible, but if you have ever seen this kind of work in photos or papers, it is unpleasant, but as another poster points out: this is not neuralink specific. Far more animals are sacrificed for much more mundane science than what neuralink is trying to achieve, which could enormously improve quality of life for a lot of people.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  This was Neuralink specific though. Neuralink have been breaking the laws which govern animal trials, and then cynically hiding the evidence of this from the public. That animal needed to be 'sacrificed' - after a day or so of horrific suffering - directly because Neuralink leaked toxic glue directly onto the animal's brain. They took notes on the horror show which followed instead of killing the animal immediately, and then took steps to hide all this from the public as well as the law. > Far more animals are sacrificed for much more mundane science Guess what - I don't agree with that either. But Neuralink are breaking the law, deliberately, and then deliberately covering that up. It's not the fucking same, and it's wild how y'all aren't getting that.
mft_ 3y ago
I’m not for a second justifying needless animal suffering, but you’re picking on the wrong thing, presumably due to a lack of understanding of the area under discussion. A solidly established concept in regulated animal trials (e.g. of human drugs in early development) is to prevent further suffering, once a line has been crossed, by way of killing the animal quickly and cleanly. It isn’t palatable but this fundamental concept, and the term ‘sacrifice’, aren’t issues here.

worthless-trash 3y ago

Not apologizing or justifying the event with the monkeys, I've had to put down animals that have broken their hind legs, damaged intestines and been gnawed at by local dingo (or wild dog) populations. I _could_ have kept that sheep or cow alive, but the quality of life would be so low that it wouldn't be cruelty. There is a certain point where the compassionate thing is to terminate the life. I imagine some researcher was in the very same position, they may not have been the cause, and they could save the animal but at that point its not going to have any life that isn't all torture for every day of the rest of its life. I kind of envy people who have never had to make these kinds of choices. The fact that it was this bad from a lab procedure makes the situation even more saddening.

WesolyKubeczek 3y ago
The crucial difference is that it wasn’t you breaking their hind legs, damaging their intestines, and/or gnawing at them in the first place.
- worthless-trash 3y ago
  Thats true, I can imagine the poor lab tech who didnt make that mistake either having to make the tough call.

chriskanan 3y ago

Sacrificed is a term commonly used in biology and neuroscience, so the person quoted us just using specific jargon to their field: https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/07/the-surprising-history-of-scientific-researchers-using-the-word-sacrifice-to-refer-to-lab-animals.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/07/the-surprising-hist... I'm sure the photos will look terrible, but if you have ever seen this kind of work in photos or papers, it is unpleasant, but as another poster points out: this is not neuralink specific. Far more animals are sacrificed for much more mundane science than what neuralink is trying to achieve, which could enormously improve quality of life for a lot of people.

mandmandam 3y ago
This was Neuralink specific though. Neuralink have been breaking the laws which govern animal trials, and then cynically hiding the evidence of this from the public. That animal needed to be 'sacrificed' - after a day or so of horrific suffering - directly because Neuralink leaked toxic glue directly onto the animal's brain. They took notes on the horror show which followed instead of killing the animal immediately, and then took steps to hide all this from the public as well as the law. > Far more animals are sacrificed for much more mundane science Guess what - I don't agree with that either. But Neuralink are breaking the law, deliberately, and then deliberately covering that up. It's not the fucking same, and it's wild how y'all aren't getting that.

mft_ 3y ago

I’m not for a second justifying needless animal suffering, but you’re picking on the wrong thing, presumably due to a lack of understanding of the area under discussion. A solidly established concept in regulated animal trials (e.g. of human drugs in early development) is to prevent further suffering, once a line has been crossed, by way of killing the animal quickly and cleanly. It isn’t palatable but this fundamental concept, and the term ‘sacrifice’, aren’t issues here.