I'm not going to get too worked up by a private company doing something that has received no complaints from the federal agency in charge of overseeing it. If you think the USDA's regulations are too lax, that's something that we the people can potentially change.
For example, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, there are only two non-affiliated members out of an IACUC member list of 21 people.
https://animalcare.illinois.edu/about/institutional-animal-c...
In my opinion, this Reuters article is another manifestation of the anti-Musk media bias that preys on the ignorance of your average person who won't know that this IACUC structure is entirely par for the course.
A neurosurgeon at Neurallink was just on Huberman Lab. He discussed, in detail: why they do the kind of animal testing they do, the humane parts, inhumane practices, the internal culture.
I’ll take his word for it to be honest.
No. It is childishly optimistic to thing we the people can change anything about this. Our best shot is complaining on social media and write articles in news magazines, but even that has limited results.
What? Jesus that's so absurd
Some practices might not get done in those days - and might not be reviewed. Imagine no animals has to be put down during these two days, there will be no actual review of that procedure - and so on.
In slaighterhouses in Canada, we have federal inspectors during all work hours but activists still film abuse happening.
Breeders and remote zoo-like facilities are probably the most difficult to get to.
Employees controlling the board sounds highly unusual for most companies, but for maybe not for a moonshot company? Didn’t Zuckerberg negotiate total control of the FB board?
And aren’t most boards incentives linked to company performance?
I’m definitely concerned about the ethics for animal testing, but I’d never trust a company or board to regulate itself. That’s what the government and the law is for. If there are concerns the government should step in.
That's what they're talking about, not corporate governance. If you do animal experimentation, you have an independent board that reviews the protocols, etc., to ensure things are done ethically. Similar to an IRB with human experiments.
The heavy weighting towards employees isn't a sign that it was selected for its independence from the company.
