Neuralink, the biotechnology company co-founded by Elon Musk, has been accused of animal cruelty and is under federal investigation in the United States for potential animal welfare violations.
Neuralink, the biotechnology company co-founded by Elon Musk, has been accused of animal cruelty and is under federal investigation in the United States for potential animal welfare violations.
The company has tested its brain-implant technology in animals including monkeys, sheep and pigs. Whistleblowers allege it has killed about 1,500 animals since 2018.
They claim testing was rushed, which caused significant animal suffering and required botched experiments to be repeated—harming more animals than necessary.
This scandal highlights an old but important question: when is it acceptable to harm non-human animals for human ends?
Moral confusion
The condemnation of Neuralink suggests many people view animal suffering as a serious moral problem. We find similar attitudes when people are outraged by pet owners neglecting or abusing their pets.
But our responses to animal suffering are complicated. Surveys show many people think at least some forms of animal research are ethically acceptable, such as medical research where alternatives aren’t available. Most people also think it is not morally evil to buy a hamburger, animal welfare concerns aside.
Our attitudes towards animals are confusing—and arguably self-serving. We need to think more carefully about how animals ought to be treated.
Do animals matter?
In the 17th century, philosopher René Descartes famously described animals as mere «automata». He believed they lack a soul and a mind, and are therefore incapable of suffering.
But progress in fields such as ethology and the cognitive sciences has improved our understanding of animal behavior, and we have come to appreciate animals have rich mental lives. There is now scientific consensus that mammals, birds and many others are capable of feeling pain and pleasure.
One might argue that, even if animals can suffer, ethics should only concern how we treat fellow humans since animals are not «one of us». But this view is unsatisfying.
If somebody were to say it doesn’t matter how we treat people with a different skin color, because they are not «one of us», we would (rightly) call them racist. Those who claim the same about animals can be accused of making a similar mistake.
Our treatment of animals has come under increasing philosophical scrutiny since the time of Descartes.
