Also, what do you mean by "this description"? It's an investigation by WIRED, there are many sources in this article, and quite a lot of "this description" is simply quoting staff notes.
I've worked in labs that do animal testing. It's not done unless there are no alternatives. Animals are very well taken care of and every attempt is made to eliminate any pain or suffering.
But hey, if you're so against animal testing you should stop using anything that's been testing on an animal. That would be the logical thing. So no cancer drugs, no antibiotics, or practically any other medical.
Then you can tell me how "useless the suffering is"
I don't know about you, but that sounds like a very worthwhile goal.
Meet a typical medical student. Ever opened an anatomic atlas?
Please don't condescendingly diagnose other people for "psychopathic behavior" when you don't seem to be able to figure out the basic functioning of your fellow human, hastily dehumanizing them.
There are barely any laws around this for animals
I get to read comments like this - definitive statements that are 100% false.
There are a ton of laws around animal testing. If you want to run an experiment like this you need to go through hundreds of pages of regulations to make sure you follow all of them. Then you need to go in front of a board who will make you justify the work (only allowed if there is no alternative), and discuss at length exactly what you will do to the animals, what you will do if things go wrong, how you will monitor their health, what you will do with the animal once the experiment is done. All the while you need to show you are doing you best to alleviate any suffering, including administration of anesthetics and pain killers.
This is also false.
There is a very comprehensive law outlining the laws around animal testing along with hundreds of pages of regulations that go into exquisite detail on what animal testing is allowed and what efforts have to be put forth to minimize pain and suffering.
Besides that, the central argument of the article is it disputes the Neuralink/Musk’s claim that “the monkeys died due to unforeseen complications”. Instead, what seems more likely is Neuralink experiments were directly responsible for the gruesome deaths of their test subjects. None of what you wrote addresses or refutes the evidence presented in the article.
Infections, wounds bleeding, broken devices, complications from brain implants like bleeding or brain damage. These are certainly bad outcomes, but I wouldn't say unexpected or something you wouldn't see with other animal tests for medical devices.
Keep in mind this description comes from Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine which seeks to abolish animal testing entirely. Not an unbiased source.
If Musk's company were doing this alone, I might assume something bad is happening, but it's not, the tests are done in partnership with "California National Primate Research Center (CNPRC), a federally funded bioresearch facility at UC Davis".
I'd find it hard to believe a government run, non-profit center which are experts in primate research (and operating within a public university) aren't follow laws around animal testing and appropriate care and effort to prevent suffering.