Elon Musk’s Neural ink Mistreatment of Test Subjects Used in Brain Chip Trials

Elon Musk’s Neural ink responds to allegations of mistreatment of test subjects used in brain chip trials

The controversy erupted after ugly details about the trial of a state-of-the-art implant device owned by Elon Musk came out.

Elon Musk's revolutionary neural ink device has been sidelined by legal battles as billionaires continue to accelerate research for the world's first commercial brain implant.

Describing Neural link as the gateway to the future of interface with technology, proponents claim that the microchip could eventually solve many problems, such as hearing and vision loss, as well as allow people to scroll memes with their eyes closed.

In the case of artificial intelligence, Kasturi has long been a proponent of the "join them if you can't defeat them" philosophy, believing that humans have the potential to successfully and securely interface with machines if technology is developed and legislated responsibly.

Neural ink has already applied for volunteers to become the world's first "implanted" people. However, in the initial testing of the device, the drama bubble about the treatment of apes has created an unwelcome public scandal for the new polarization technology.

The current neural ink design is a two-dollar coin-sized chip, which is inserted into a hole drilled in the back of the skull and connected to the brain via tiny wires.

The PCRM test of Neural ink, conducted in partnership with the University of California between 2017 and 2020, claimed that the experiments

The group further complained that other monkeys had suffered serious side effects, including bloody skin infections and brain hemorrhage after being fitted with a neural ink device on their heads. The group made its allegations based on documents obtained through a request for public records.

Neural link responded to the play on Wednesday, explaining the complex process involved in animal testing, revealing that preliminary tests were performed on carcasses and animals. A pre-existing condition ".

"It's important to note that these allegations come from people who oppose any use of animals in research."

"All animal work performed at UC Davis was approved by their Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) as mandatory by federal law, and all medical and post-surgical assistance, including end-point decisions, were supervised by their dedicated and skilled veterinary staff." Neural ink said.

"While UC Davis' facilities and care meet and continue to meet federally mandatory standards, we wanted to improve those standards as we move animals to our internal facilities."

 However, opponents are still skeptical about the possibility of a brain implant.

Anna Wexler, a professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, says the world's richest man tends to exaggerate his technology, and doubts whether a neural ink .

"Neural ink's employees are scientists and engineers who are working to develop what appears to be a legitimate medical device. Nevertheless, the co-founders of the company make strong and bombarded claims about the possibility of using the same technology to cure all diseases and give people the opportunity to integrate with AI." Like to do. "