Elon Musk, the enigmatic CEO of various tech ventures, including Neuralink, is facing fresh allegations of potential securities fraud. These allegations stem from recent statements he made concerning the deaths of primates used in research at his biotech startup, Neuralink. A medical ethics group has sent letters to top officials at the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), calling for an investigation into Musk’s claims.
Musk had asserted that the monkeys in question were terminally ill and their deaths were unrelated to Neuralink implants. However, the medical ethics group, relying on veterinary records, contends that complications arising from the implant procedures were responsible for the primates’ demise.
Musk publicly acknowledged the deaths of the macaques on September 10 through a post on his social networking platform, X (formerly Twitter). He vehemently denied any link between the deaths and Neuralink implants, asserting that the research team had deliberately chosen subjects close to death already. Furthermore, Musk claimed that Neuralink’s animal testing was conducted to confirm established scientific hypotheses, emphasizing the company’s commitment to utmost care.
However, public records examined by WIRED and conversations with former Neuralink employees and current researchers at the University of California, Davis primate center paint a starkly different picture of Neuralink’s animal research.
These records, including veterinary reports, made public in the past year, describe harrowing accounts of suffering endured by several of Neuralink’s primate subjects, many of whom had to be euthanized. These records could potentially serve as grounds for an SEC investigation into Musk’s statements concerning Neuralink.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a non-profit organization advocating for the abolition of live animal testing, sent the letters to the SEC. They allege that Musk’s statements about the primate deaths were misleading and that he knowingly made false claims. The organization argues that investors deserve to know the truth about the safety and marketability of Neuralink’s speculative product.
Ryan Merkley, who leads the Physicians Committee’s research into animal-testing alternatives, commented, “They are claiming they are going to put a safe device on the market, and that’s why you should invest. And we see his lie as a way to whitewash what happened in these exploratory studies.”
Notably, Musk’s social media posts have a significant reach, with his post on X about Neuralink’s monkeys garnering over 760,000 views. The Physicians Committee pointed out that when the SEC charged Musk with securities fraud related to Tesla in 2018, the agency considered his social media accounts as sources of investor news. The SEC has jurisdiction over the sale of securities, even for privately held companies like Neuralink, which, according to recent filings, has raised over $280 million from external investors.
The SEC has declined to comment on the Physicians Committee’s letters, while Neuralink has not responded to inquiries regarding Musk’s statements or the allegations made by the Physicians Committee.
Neuralink, founded in March 2017, acquired a substantial number of animal subjects within a year for testing its brain-chip implants. From September 2017 until late 2020, the California National Primate Research Center (CNPRC), a federally funded bioresearch facility at UC Davis, collaborated with Neuralink in conducting experiments. Neuralink’s ambitious goal was to revolutionize prosthetics and create an implant enabling wireless communication between human brains and artificial devices.
Veterinary records from UC Davis, cited by the Physicians Committee, detail various complications arising from procedures involving the surgical implantation of electrodes into monkeys’ brains. These complications include conditions like bloody diarrhea, partial paralysis, and cerebral edema, colloquially known as “brain swelling.”
One case in December 2019 involved an implant-related mishap where an internal part of the device broke off during surgery. This incident led to severe complications, with the monkey experiencing discomfort and developing fungal and bacterial infections. Despite attempts to remedy the situation with a subsequent surgery, the monkey was euthanized in January 2020.
Another tragic case was that of a female monkey known as “Animal 15,” who exhibited signs of distress and discomfort following her implant surgery in March 2019. She displayed behaviors indicative of pain or infection, such as pressing her head against the floor and repeatedly tampering with her implant, resulting in bleeding. Her condition deteriorated over months, culminating in her eventual euthanasia, which revealed bleeding in her brain and damage to her cerebral cortex due to the Neuralink implants.
Yet another monkey, “Animal 22,” was euthanized in March 2020 after his cranial implant became loose. A necropsy report indicated that screws securing the implant to the skull had significantly loosened, with no signs of infection exacerbating the issue. This contradicts Musk’s assertion that no monkeys died as a result of Neuralink’s chips.
A former Neuralink employee, speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation, disputed Musk’s claim that the monkeys were already close to death before the experiments. They pointed out that the monkeys had been in Neuralink’s care for about a year before any surgeries were performed, and extensive behavioral training was required for the program, a timeframe incompatible with subjects already near death.
A doctoral candidate currently conducting research at CNPRC, also requesting anonymity due to concerns of professional repercussions, expressed skepticism regarding Musk’s claim about the baseline health of Neuralink’s monkeys. They stated, “These are pretty young monkeys,” adding that it’s implausible that these non-adult monkeys were already terminal.
Andy Fell, a spokesperson for the Davis campus, declined to comment on Elon Musk’s statements.
Should the SEC choose to investigate Musk’s comments, it would mark at least the third federal probe related to Neuralink’s animal testing. In December 2022, the US Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General initiated an inquiry into Neuralink’s treatment of certain animal test subjects. In February 2023, the US Department of Transportation launched an investigation into Neuralink over allegations of unsafe transportation of antibiotic-resistant pathogens.
These investigations followed the US Food and Drug Administration’s initial rejection of Neuralink’s application for in-human clinical trials in early 2022. The FDA cited concerns about the device’s lithium battery and the potential migration of implant wires within the brain. However, in May, the FDA granted approval for human trials.
Neuralink recently announced receiving approval from an independent review board to commence a study aimed at enabling individuals with paralysis to control a computer keyboard or cursor using their thoughts. Human trials for this groundbreaking technology could soon become a reality.
