Actually, you can’t do this. Negligence is one thing. Deliberately torturing animals, even if they are used for food, is illegal.
Scientific animal research has guidelines to minimize suffering as much as possible. The government treats this as a necessary evil. If you’re attempting to do this in good faith, it’s only morally wrong.
Many companies make illegal activity a corporate policy, but that doesn’t make them immune from prosecution if someone decides they have stepped too far over the line.
Where in the article did it say NeuroLink was deliberately torturing the animals? In fact, the article said that the animals are killed after research in order to do post mortem examinations. This is standard across many animal testing labs.
This is how we could describe any procedures in this area of medicine, so the intentions seem to meet the criteria for calling it a test and not torture, but the sloppiness is the extra cruelty on top.
There are other articles describing horrific incidents:
"In two separate incidents, experimenters used an unapproved adhesive called BioGlue to fill holes in the animals’ skulls, which seeped through to the monkeys’ brains. In one monkey, the use of BioGlue caused bleeding in her brain, and she vomited so much from the resulting side effects that she developed open sores in her esophagus."
It's not two mistakes. It's two cases of torture. Just because it's only two doesn't mean it wasn't torture. It's not like they discovered the mistake and then immediately euthanized the animals, they chose to continue the experiments and torture them after the mistakes were evident.
Scientific animal research has guidelines to minimize suffering as much as possible. The government treats this as a necessary evil. If you’re attempting to do this in good faith, it’s only morally wrong.
Many companies make illegal activity a corporate policy, but that doesn’t make them immune from prosecution if someone decides they have stepped too far over the line.