>> The shaking could as well be caused by the damage to the brain > That makes it worse.
Does it? I can see how an argument could be made along the lines of: the animal testing (rather than human testing) is there because of a theoretical risk of suffering, and so as soon as it happens in practice, the research should be stopped, the strategy changed etc. But does anyone here really think this is the case? I'd think everyone here knows animal suffering is inevitable on this stage of the research (obviously there could be less or more of it depending on competence and good will to invest in more humane procedures - neither can be evaluated based on such a note). What the quote does, I think, is that it implies some kind of sadism on the side of the researchers. Meanwhile I think the "uncontrollable shaking" could as well happen after a placebo procedure, just because the macaque doesn't know what is being done to it. Such a strong response to this particular quote seems to me purely emotional, which the OP confirms with his further line(s) of argumentation.
> It’s not like the original comment quoted the only problem in the article, they chose one of many.
Exactly! Why that one? After several requests, the OP refuses to explain why he thought it's such an important quote.
Neither will assuming a straw man which isn’t there. Had I used your exact words, I would have made the exact same point. I did not answer a different argument (the definition of a straw man) but the same argument with different words.
But I do believe you’re arguing in good faith, so if you agree we can chalk that up to miscommunication and move the point along.
> So what I point out is: "uncontrollable shaking" can be easily over-interpreted. Probably everyone here shivered at least once.
The key is that the animal would shake uncontrollably when seeing lab workers. We cannot discard that context. Shaking uncontrollably in response to specific stimuli should make us consider if the latter is causing the former.
> The shaking could as well be caused by the damage to the brain
That makes it worse.
> We could have an interesting conversation on the morality of testing on animals, instead of comparing a single sentence of a monkey shaking uncontrollably
Then let’s add more sentences about that specific animal:
> she began to press her head against the floor for no apparent reason; a symptom of pain or infection, the records say. (…) she was uncomfortable, picking and pulling at her implant until it bled, she would often lie at the foot of her cage (…) A necropsy report indicates that she had bleeding in her brain and that the Neuralink implants left parts of her cerebral cortex “focally tattered”.
There are more animals described in the article, we can could pull quote from those too. It’s not like the original comment quoted the only problem in the article, they chose one of many. Like yourself, I don’t know why they picked that specific sentence, but focusing on that quote alone is missing the forest for the trees.