Connect with us

Published

on

Elon Musk’s Neuralink, a medical device company, is under federal investigation for potential animal-welfare violations amid internal staff complaints that its animal testing is being rushed, causing needless suffering and deaths, according to documents reviewed by Reuters and sources familiar with the investigation and company operations.

Neuralink is developing a brain implant it hopes will help paralysed people walk again and cure other neurological ailments. The federal probe, which has not been previously reported, was opened in recent months by the US Department of Agriculture’s Inspector General at the request of a federal prosecutor, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. The probe, one of the sources said, focuses on violations of the Animal Welfare Act, which governs how researchers treat and test some animals.

The investigation has come at a time of growing employee dissent about Neuralink’s animal testing, including complaints that pressure from CEO Musk to accelerate development has resulted in botched experiments, according to a Reuters review of dozens of Neuralink documents and interviews with more than 20 current and former employees. Such failed tests have had to be repeated, increasing the number of animals being tested and killed, the employees say. The company documents include previously unreported messages, audio recordings, emails, presentations and reports.

Musk and other Neuralink executives did not respond to requests for comment.

Reuters could not determine the full scope of the federal investigation or whether it involved the same alleged problems with animal testing identified by employees in Reuters interviews. A spokesperson for the USDA inspector general declined to comment. US regulations don’t specify how many animals companies can use for research, and they give significant leeway to scientists to determine when and how to use animals in experiments. Neuralink has passed all USDA inspections of its facilities, regulatory filings show.

In all, the company has killed about 1,500 animals, including more than 280 sheep, pigs and monkeys, following experiments since 2018, according to records reviewed by Reuters and sources with direct knowledge of the company’s animal-testing operations. The sources characterised that figure as a rough estimate because the company does not keep precise records on the number of animals tested and killed. Neuralink has also conducted research using rats and mice.

The total number of animal deaths does not necessarily indicate that Neuralink is violating regulations or standard research practices. Many companies routinely use animals in experiments to advance human health care, and they face financial pressure to quickly bring products to market. The animals are typically killed when experiments are completed, often so they can be examined post-mortem for research purposes.

But current and former Neuralink employees say the number of animal deaths is higher than it needs to be for reasons related to Musk’s demands to speed research. Through company discussions and documents spanning several years, along with employee interviews, Reuters identified four experiments involving 86 pigs and two monkeys that were marred in recent years by human errors. The mistakes weakened the experiments’ research value and required the tests to be repeated, leading to more animals being killed, three of the current and former staffers said. The three people attributed the mistakes to a lack of preparation by a testing staff working in a pressure-cooker environment.

One employee, in a message seen by Reuters, wrote an angry missive earlier this year to colleagues about the need to overhaul how the company organises animal surgeries to prevent “hack jobs.” The rushed schedule, the employee wrote, resulted in under-prepared and over-stressed staffers scrambling to meet deadlines and making last-minute changes before surgeries, raising risks to the animals.

Musk has pushed hard to accelerate Neuralink’s progress, which depends heavily on animal testing, current and former employees said. Earlier this year, the chief executive sent staffers a news article about Swiss researchers who developed an electrical implant that helped a paralyzed man to walk again. “We could enable people to use their hands and walk again in daily life!” he wrote to staff at 6:37 a.m. Pacific Time on Feb. 8. Ten minutes later, he followed up: “In general, we are simply not moving fast enough. It is driving me nuts!”

On several occasions over the years, Musk has told employees to imagine they had a bomb strapped to their heads in an effort to get them to move faster, according to three sources who repeatedly heard the comment. On one occasion a few years ago, Musk told employees he would trigger a “market failure” at Neuralink unless they made more progress, a comment perceived by some employees as a threat to shut down operations, according to a former staffer who heard his comment.

Five people who’ve worked on Neuralink’s animal experiments told Reuters they had raised concerns internally. They said they had advocated for a more traditional testing approach, in which researchers would test one element at a time in an animal study and draw relevant conclusions before moving on to more animal tests. Instead, these people said, Neuralink launches tests in quick succession before fixing issues in earlier tests or drawing complete conclusions. The result: More animals overall are tested and killed, in part because the approach leads to repeated tests.

One former employee who asked management several years ago for more deliberate testing was told by a senior executive it wasn’t possible given Musk’s demands for speed, the employee said. Two people told Reuters they left the company over concerns about animal research.

The problems with Neuralink’s testing have raised questions internally about the quality of the resulting data, three current or former employees said. Such problems could potentially delay the company’s bid to start human trials, which Musk has said the company wants to do within the next six months. They also add to a growing list of headaches for Musk, who is facing criticism of his management of Twitter, which he recently acquired for $44 billion. Musk also continues to run electric carmaker Tesla Inc and rocket company SpaceX.

The US Food and Drug Administration is in charge of reviewing the company’s applications for approval of its medical device and associated trials. The company’s treatment of animals during research, however, is regulated by the USDA under the Animal Welfare Act. The FDA didn’t immediately comment.

Missed deadlines, botched experiments

Musk’s impatience with Neuralink has grown as the company, which launched in 2016, has missed his deadlines on several occasions to win regulatory approval to start clinical trials in humans, according to company documents and interviews with eight current and former employees.

Some Neuralink rivals are having more success. Synchron, which was launched in 2016 and is developing a different implant with less ambitious goals for medical advances, received FDA approval to start human trials in 2021. The company’s device has allowed paralyzed people to text and type by thinking alone. Synchron has also conducted tests on animals, but it has killed only about 80 sheep as part of its research, according to studies of the Synchron implant reviewed by Reuters. Musk approached Synchron about a potential investment, Reuters reported in August.

Synchron declined to comment.

In some ways, Neuralink treats animals quite well compared to other research facilities, employees said in interviews, echoing public statements by Musk and other executives. Company leaders have boasted internally of building a “Monkey Disneyland” in the company’s Austin, Texas facility where lab animals can roam, a former employee said. In the company’s early years, Musk told employees he wanted the monkeys at his San Francisco Bay Area operation to live in a “monkey Taj Mahal,” said a former employee who heard the comment. Another former employee recalled Musk saying he disliked using animals for research but wanted to make sure they were “the happiest animals” while alive.

The animals have fared less well, however, when used in the company’s research, current and former employees say.

The first complaints about the company’s testing involved its initial partnership with University of California, Davis, to conduct the experiments. In February, an animal rights group, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, filed a complaint with the USDA accusing the Neuralink-UC Davis project of botching surgeries that killed monkeys and publicly released its findings. The group alleged that surgeons used the wrong surgical glue twice, which led to two monkeys suffering and ultimately dying, while other monkeys had different complications from the implants.

The company has acknowledged it killed six monkeys, on the advice of USC Davis veterinary staff, because of health problems caused by experiments. It called the issue with the glue a “complication” from the use of an “FDA-approved product.” In response to a Reuters inquiry, a USC Davis spokesperson shared a previous public statement defending its research with Neuralink and saying it followed all laws and regulations.

A federal prosecutor in the Northern District of California referred the animal rights group’s complaint to the USDA Inspector General, which has since launched a formal probe, according to a source with direct knowledge of the investigation. USDA investigators then inquired about the allegations involving the UC Davis monkey research, according to two sources familiar with the matter and emails and messages reviewed by Reuters.

The probe is concerned with the testing and treatment of animals in Neuralink’s own facilities, one of the sources said, without elaborating. In 2020, Neuralink brought the program in-house, and has since built its extensive facilities in California and Texas.

A spokesperson for the US attorney’s office for the Northern District of California declined to comment.

Delcianna Winders, director of the Animal Law and Policy Institute at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, said it is “very unusual” for the USDA inspector general to investigate animal research facilities. Winders, an animal-testing opponent who has criticised Neuralink, said the inspector general has primarily focused in recent years on dog fighting and cockfighting actions when applying the Animal Welfare Act.

It’s hard on the little piggies

The mistakes leading to unnecessary animal deaths included one instance in 2021, when 25 out of 60 pigs in a study had devices that were the wrong size implanted in their heads, an error that could have been avoided with more preparation, according to a person with knowledge of the situation and company documents and communications reviewed by Reuters.

The mistake raised alarms among Neuralink’s researchers. In May 2021, Viktor Kharazia, a scientist, wrote to colleagues that the mistake could be a “red flag” to FDA reviewers of the study, which the company planned to submit as part of its application to begin human trials. His colleagues agreed, and the experiment was repeated with 36 sheep, according to the person with knowledge of the situation. All the animals, both the pigs and the sheep, were killed after the procedures, the person said.

Kharazia did not comment in response to requests.

On another occasion, staff accidentally implanted Neuralink’s device on the wrong vertebra of two different pigs during two separate surgeries, according to two sources with knowledge of the matter and documents reviewed by Reuters. The incident frustrated several employees who said the mistakes – on two separate occasions – could have easily been avoided by carefully counting the vertebrae before inserting the device.

Company veterinarian Sam Baker advised his colleagues to immediately kill one of the pigs to end her suffering.

“Based on low chance of full recovery … and her current poor psychological well-being, it was decided that euthanasia was the only appropriate course of action,” Baker wrote colleagues about one of the pigs a day after the surgery, adding a broken heart emoji.

Baker did not comment on the incident.

Employees have sometimes pushed back on Musk’s demands to move fast. In a company discussion several months ago, some Neuralink employees protested after a manager said that Musk had encouraged them to do a complex surgery on pigs soon. The employees resisted on the grounds that the surgery’s complexity would lengthen the amount of time the pigs would be under anesthesia, risking their health and recovery. They argued they should first figure out how to cut down the time it would take to do the surgery.

“It’s hard on the little piggies,” one of the employees said, referring to the lengthy period under anesthesia.

In September, the company responded to employee concerns about its animal testing by holding a town hall to explain its processes. It soon after opened up the meetings to staff of its federally-mandated board that reviews the animal experiments.

Neuralink executives have said publicly that the company tests animals only when it has exhausted other research options, but documents and company messages suggest otherwise. During a November 30 presentation the company broadcast on YouTube, for example, Musk said surgeries were used at a later stage of the process to confirm that the device works rather than to test early hypotheses. “We’re extremely careful,” he said, to make sure that testing is “confirmatory, not exploratory,” using animal testing as a last resort after trying other methods.

In October, a month before Musk’s comments, Autumn Sorrells, the head of animal care, ordered employees to scrub “exploration” from study titles retroactively and stop using it in the future.

Sorrells did not comment in response to requests.

Neuralink records reviewed by Reuters contained numerous references over several years to exploratory surgeries, and three people with knowledge of the company’s research strongly rejected the assertion that Neuralink avoids exploratory tests on animals. Company discussions reviewed by Reuters showed several employees expressing concerns about Sorrells’ request to change exploratory study descriptions, saying it would be inaccurate and misleading.

One noted that the request seemed designed to provide “better optics” for Neuralink.

© Thomson Reuters 2022


Affiliate links may be automatically generated – see our ethics statement for details.

Continue Reading

Science

Greenland’s Melting Glaciers Feed Ocean Life, Study Finds

Published

on

By

Greenland's Melting Glaciers Feed Ocean Life, Study Finds

The process of Greenland’s ice sheet melting is not only raising sea levels, it is also feeding life in the ocean. As the most productive for marine life, phytoplankton harvesting energy from this nutrient-filled climate change is altering how this biological pump works in these warming ares. In a new study, scientists employed cutting-edge computer models to simulate the intricate movements of ice melt and seawater with ocean currents and marine biology behaviour finnesing adding more detail to an understanding of these unseen forces between Earth’s shifting polar zones.

Glacial Melt Fuels a Surge in Ocean Life

According to precious study, each summer Jakobshavn Glacier releases more than 300,000 gallons of freshwater per second into the sea. This less-dense meltwater shoots upward through heavier, salty seawater, dragging deep-sea nutrients—like iron and nitrate—toward the sunlit surface. These nutrients are essential for phytoplankton, which are the foundation of the ocean food chain.

In recent decades, NASA satellite data recorded a 57% surge in Arctic phytoplankton, and scientists now have a clearer picture of why. The nutrient boost is especially crucial in late summer, when spring blooms have already depleted surface waters. Without direct access to such remote regions, researchers had long struggled to test the nutrient-plume hypothesis—until now.

NASA’s Digital Ocean Brings Clarity Beneath the Ice

To simulate the chaotic waters of Greenland’s fjords, researchers used the ECCO-Darwin model, developed by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and MIT. Fueled by billions of ocean measurements—temperature, salinity, pressure—this model replicates how biology, chemistry, and physics interact. Using NASA’s supercomputers at Ames Research Center, the team calculated a 15–40% increase in phytoplankton growth from glacial nutrients.

Yet more change looms: as melting accelerates, seawater may lose its ability to absorb CO₂ even as plankton pull more of it in. “Like a Swiss Army knife,” said researcher Michael Wood, “this model helps us explore ecosystems far beyond Greenland.”

Continue Reading

Science

NASA Aims to Deploy Nuclear Reactor on Moon by 2030 for Strategic Power

Published

on

By

NASA Aims to Deploy Nuclear Reactor on Moon by 2030 for Strategic Power

NASA’s interim leader Sean Duffy recently declared the U.S. space agency aims to place a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor on the Moon by 2030 to provide energy for an eventual lunar outpost. Duffy describes this as a new moon race to establish the strategic foothold and keep a competitive advantage for the U.S. During a press conference titled “Unleashing American Drone Dominance” , he emphasised the importance of having dependable power on the lunar surface. NASA moved up its new crew-rushed lunar lander by a full year as the agency scrambles to seize key resources on the moon and lay the groundwork for deeper exploration at least four years away.

According to the press conference, for exploration and a long-term Moon base, reliable power is crucial. Solar panels fail during the Moon’s two-week-long nights, so a nuclear reactor could supply continuous electricity even in darkness. It would be especially valuable at the south pole, where permanent shadows hide water-ice deposits. These ice reserves are essential for life support and fuel, so steady power there would expand mission capabilities. Strategically, deploying a reactor would help secure key territory.

China and Russia plan to build one by the mid-2030s, and U.S. officials warn the first country to do so could effectively claim that region, creating a de facto “keep-out zone”. Duffy even called the south pole the Moon’s “best” spot—rich in ice and sunlight—and said America must “get there first and claim that for America”.

Challenges

The directive sets near-term milestones. NASA must appoint a lunar reactor program manager within 30 days and solicit industry proposals within 60 days. The aim is a flight-ready 100 kW reactor by roughly 2030.

However, the plan faces major hurdles. The 2026 budget would allocate about $350 million to jump-start lunar fission power (rising to $500 M by 2027), but also proposes deep cuts to overall NASA funding. Observers note this would be NASA’s smallest budget in decades. Meanwhile, the agency is trimming science programs and even its workforce.

Continue Reading

Science

NASA Awards Firefly $177M for 2029 Mission to Deliver Rovers to Moon’s South Pole

Published

on

By

NASA Awards Firefly 7M for 2029 Mission to Deliver Rovers to Moon’s South Pole

NASA’s $176.7 million for Firefly is funding a contract to deliver two rovers and three science instruments to the south pole of the moon in 2029. It will be the first of multiple rovers to roll in on a single flight under NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) initiative. The cargo variant of Blue Origin’s lander is in development to prospect the moon’s surface for resources, like water ice, that can be used to support future crewed missions. It is Firefly’s fifth CLPS task order and fourth manifested lunar landing, further supporting NASA’s overarching Artemis programme to return humans sustainably to the Moon.

Firefly’s Multi-Year Moon Mission to Deliver Rovers, Study Water Ice at Lunar South Pole

According to a NASA statement, Firefly is slated to launch between July 2025 and March 2030, delivering the payload to complete a full surface delivery mission. The payload features mobile rovers and science instruments from collaborators such as the Canadian Space Agency and the University of Bern that will examine surface chemistry, radiation measurements, and hydrogen-rich volatiles.

The new US vision — the Artemis programme — pays attention to the moon’s southern pole, where water is stored in ice. Firefly makes two successful lunar deliveries in 2025 and 2028 with the help of CLPS, driving costs lower and flight rates higher.

Firefly Mission to Map Lunar Hazards and Pave the Way for Future Human Exploration

The mission package, which includes imaging, autonomous mobility, and regolith analysis, aims to map hazards, locate safe zones, and prepare for future human missions, including Mars-targeting.

As noted by Johnson Space Centre’s CLPS manager Adam Schlesinger, lunar deliveries like this one “will provide a better understanding of the exploration environment”, bringing NASA closer to achieving a sustainable lunar presence.

Continue Reading

Trending