News
EXCLUSIVE: Neuralink dragged into humane testing lawsuit – Timeline of Events
Neuralink has been dragged into a lawsuit by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine against the University of California at Davis. The lawsuit, which is amended from its initial filing date of May 2021, seeks to have UC Davis release images and video of inhumanely-treated test subjects, including monkeys, who died after participating in some trials of Neuralink-sponsored research for the development of neural interface implant devices. We have put together an exclusive timeline of events based on interviews and an examination of over 700 pages of documents that UC Davis was required to turn over to the PCRM.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a nonprofit organization with more than 17,000 doctor members. It filed a formal complaint with the United States Department of Agriculture today, claiming UC Davis and Neuralink staff violated the federal Animal Welfare Act related to experiments performed on 23 monkeys. Neuralink paid more than $1.4 million to UC Davis to carry out the experiments.
The PCRM said in a press release that Neuralink and the University “failed to provide dying monkeys with adequate veterinary care, used an unapproved substance known as “Bioglue” that killed monkeys by destroying portions of their brains, and failed to provide for the psychological well-being of monkeys assigned to the experiment.”
In an exclusive interview with Teslarati earlier today, Jeremy Beckham, MPA, MPH, PCRM’s Research Advocacy Coordinator, said that the lawsuit really intends to open up “basic facts about what Neuralink testing did to the animals.” Beckham said monkeys had their brains mutilated in the experiments. Veterinary records, which were shared with Teslarati by the PCRM, show that UC Davis and Neuralink staff performed invasive and deadly experiments on monkeys to assess the effectiveness of the Neuralink device. The letter sent from the PCRM to the USDA earlier today gives several graphic descriptions of how the test animals were treated.
RELATED:
Neuralink details humane animal treatment during Link v0.9 testing
One animal, known as “Animal 6,” was a 6-year-old macaque monkey who was killed on January 16, 2019. The letter states that, on October 10, 2018, implanted electrodes “were placed using an investigational robot,” then, “attached to skull using titanium implant screws.” The location of the screws began to become infected, according to the letter. By January 14th, “Animal 6” had started to pick at the infected area. Staff euthanized the monkey two days later.
Timeline of Events
PCRM has been working to clarify the situation since September 2020, but a more descriptive timeline of events would clarify how Neuralink, UC Davis, and the PCRM have all combined into this issue.
- May 2017 – The University of California at Davis and Neuralink sign and agree to Non-Disclosure Agreements regarding testing.
- September 2017 – UC Davis and Neuralink officially begin their collaboration to carry out primate experiments at UC Davis facilities. The goal is to develop a brain-machine interface.
- July 2018 – “Animal 4,” an 11-year-old macaque monkey is killed in the Neuralink/UC Davis experiments, according to the complaint. The monkey was “on anti-depressants and had chronic diarrhea and poor appetite.” Additionally, the monkey was observed as “lethargic” and “depressed,” and hunched and passed bloody diarrhea. The monkey eventually died in a deadly procedure on July 20th.
- Also in July 2018 – “Animal 12,” approximately 7-years-old, undergoes a craniotomy and electrode insertion procedure. Records show the animal had “severe clinical adverse effects following the implantation, had poor stool quality, was not eating, and had an eye infection.” Records abruptly ended on July 30th.
- September 2018 – “Animal 21,” a 7-year-old female macaque undergoes an “electrode insertion survivability” procedure using “investigational robotics.” The animal was observed with adverse side effects the following day, including vomiting, gasping, retching, and had little interaction with their environment and observers. The animal was euthanized and had signs of “Bioglue,” an unapproved adhesive, covering the brain.
- December 2018 – “Animal 15,” a 7-year-old female macaque undergoes a craniotomy and recording device implantation. Following the surgery, the area became infected and bloody. The animal was euthanized on March 21, 2019. The performed necropsy shows “remnant electrode threads.”
- January 2019 – “Animal 6,” a 6-year-old macaque monkey is killed as a part of the “experimental design.” Electrodes were secured by screws drilled into the monkey’s skull, and lab staff were forced to “frequently clean” the eroding skin near the monkey’s implant site.
- March 2019 – “Animal 11” is killed at approximately 11-years-old during a terminal procedure. The monkey had an implant placed on the head or brain on December 3rd, 2018, and began experiencing symptoms like a weakened appetite and missing fingers and toes, possibly caused by self-mutilation.
- January 2020 – “Animal 5,” another macaque monkey is killed “inadvertently” by an anticonvulsant. He showed signs of significant weight loss and alopecia.
- July 2020 – Neuralink’s Elon Musk announces that the company will hold an event on August 28th, 2020, to display the progress of the V0.9 device. “Will show neurons firing in real-time on August 28th. The matrix in the matrix,” Musk said in a Tweet.
- Also in July 2020 – Neuralink receives a ‘breakthrough device’ designation from the FDA in July, and the company is working with the agency to make the technology as safe as possible.
- August 2020 – Neuralink unveils the v0.9 device, displaying healthy and functioning pigs. Musk delivers a presentation on the new device, showing the simplified product Neuralink has developed. “It’s like a FitBit in your skull with tiny wires,” Musk half-joked. “I could have it right now and you wouldn’t even know. Maybe I do!” The device is said to be installed without general anesthesia. There will be no bleeding, and no noticeable damage after the device is implanted.
- September 2020 – The PCRM files a California Public Records request, wishing for information regarding UC Davis trials of the Neuralink device. The request is eventually denied in accordance with California State Code 6255(a), which says that the Agency “shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.”
- October 2020 – “Animal 10,” an 8-year-old macaque monkey, is shipped to Neuralink’s facility in Fremont. The monkey has significant hair loss, had lesions from “unspecified traumas,” and was exhibiting self-mutilating behavior.
- November 2020 – Neuralink severs ties with UC Davis on November 11. Neuralink then moves seven of the remaining monkeys to its facility in Fremont, California. Beckham said that records show 15 of the 23 monkeys used in the research died or were euthanized at UC Davis. The final monkey’s situation is unclear, but it is possible the animal was reassigned to a different project at UC Davis, Beckham said.
- April 2021 – Neuralink releases a YouTube video of “Pager the Monkey” allegedly playing video games with a wireless neural interface. The video features a nine-year-old Macaque named Pager playing “MindPong” while utilizing a Neuralink device.
- May 2021 – PCRM sues the University of California Davis under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) for not releasing records in September 2020. Before the suit reaches a judicial decision, Counsel for the University of California agrees to release 700 pages of information.
- October 2021 – University of California’s General Counsel turns over files including animal testing records and veterinarian reports to PCRM. More than 700 pages of records are turned over.
- February 2022 – PCRM files a separate complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture that alleges the information the organization has already received reveals evidence of violations of Federal Animal Welfare laws.
Moving Forward
Beckham maintains that the main point of the newest filing is to have UC Davis turn over photographs and videos that reveal the inhumane treatment of the animals due to the experiments. There are monkeys convulsing, vomiting, and dying in these labs,” Beckham said. “People want to step in line for the first human trials, and they should see this before they commit to that,” he told Teslarati. Neuralink was set for human trials this year, Musk said last year.
Beckham said that these complaints can take a while to work through the legal system. “In my years of being involved with humane testing litigation, I know that these things can take some time. Maybe up to a year,” he said. “It also depends how much they want to fight back.”
Neuralink did not immediately respond to our requests for comment.
Beckham’s full letter to the USDA is available below.
2022-02-10 PCRM USDA Complaint Re UC Davis and Neuralink (No Exhibits) by Joey Klender on Scribd
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
News
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 began rolling out to some owners earlier this week, and there are some notable improvements that came with this update.
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Overall operation saw a handful of slight improvements, especially with parking performance, which has been the most notable difference with the arrival of FSD v14.3. However, there are still some very notable shortcomings, most notably with region-specific signage and navigation.
Tesla Assisted Smart Summon (ASS) improvements
There are noticeable improvements to ASS operation, which has definitely been inconsistent in terms of performance. Tesla wrote in the release notes for v14.3.2:
“Unified the model between Actually Smart Summon, FSD, and Robotaxi for more capable and reliable behavior.”
As recently as this month, I used Summon with no success. It had pulled around the parking lot I was in incorrectly, leaving the range at which Summon can be operated and losing a signal while moving in the middle of the lot.
This caused me to sprint across the lot to retrieve the vehicle:
It was pouring when I left the gym so I tried to Summon my Model Y
It turned the opposite way and drove out of range, stopping here and forcing me to walk even further across the lot in the rain for it 🤣
One day pic.twitter.com/iD10c8sriB
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 5, 2026
Unfortunately, Summon was not dependable or accurate enough to use regularly. It appears Tesla might have bridged the gap needed to make it an effective feature, as two tests in parking lots proved that Summon was more responsive and faster to navigate to the location chosen.
It also did so without hesitation, confidently, and at a comfortable speed. I was able to test it twice at different distances:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 ASS testing part 1
This was a significant improvement than recent tries using ASS. The parking lot was pretty empty but getting it to come to my location in one singular motion and maneuver was encouraging. https://t.co/vF7TS48GGV pic.twitter.com/sYt8tyHgNn
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 ASS testing part 2 https://t.co/lxfWfnLUxf pic.twitter.com/2R0r3ohI3M
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
I plan to test this more thoroughly and regularly through the next few weeks, and I avoided using it in a congested parking lot initially because I have not had overwhelming success with Summon in the past. I wanted to set a low baseline for it to see if it could simply pull up to the place I pinned in the Tesla app.
It was two for two, which is a big improvement because I don’t think I ever had successful Summon attempts back-to-back. It just seems more confident than ever before.
New Disengagement Categories
This is a really good idea from Tesla, but there are some issues with it. The categories you can select are Critical, Comfort, Preference, and Other.
I think the reasons why people choose to take over would be a better way to prompt drivers, like, “Traveling Too Fast,” “Incorrect Maneuver,” “Navigation Error,” would be more beneficial.
I say this because it seems that how we each categorize things might be different. For example, I shared a video of an intervention because the car had navigated to an exit to a parking lot and put its left blinker on, despite left turns not being allowed there.
I disengaged and chose Critical as the reason; it’s not a comfort issue, it’s not a preference, it’s quite literally an illegal turn, and it’s also dangerous because it cuts across several lanes of traffic and is 180 degrees.
I chose to label this Navigation error as “Critical” while testing FSD v14.3.2
Here’s why:
✅ This intervention wasn’t “preference,” as the maneuver FSD routed was illegal
✅ If a police officer saw this maneuver, it would result in a ticket https://t.co/znhHb4haAo pic.twitter.com/bZOiLwWmQa— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Some said I should not have labeled this as Critical, but that’s the description I best characterized the disengagement as.
Categorizing interventions is a good thing, but it’s kind of hard to determine how to label them correctly.
Inconsistency with Regional Traffic Patterns
Tesla Full Self-Driving is pretty inconsistent with how it handles regional or local traffic patterns and road rules. The most frequent example I like to use is that of the “Except Right Turn” stop sign, which has become a notorious sighting on our social media platforms.
In the initial rollout of v14.3, my Model Y successfully navigated through one of these stop signs with no issues. However, testing at two of these stop signs yesterday proved it is still not sure how to read signs and navigate through them properly.
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 attempts the “Except Right Turn” stop sign: https://t.co/W5MjAybaNK pic.twitter.com/P6oeUsk4PN
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Off camera, I approached another one of these signs and felt the car coming to a stop, so I nudged it forward with the accelerator pedal pressed.
This helped the car go through the sign without stopping, but I could feel the bucking of the vehicle as the car really wanted to stop.
Musk said on the earnings call earlier this week that unsupervised FSD would probably be available in some regions before others, including a state-to-state basis in the U.S.
“It’s difficult to release this like to everyone everywhere all at once because we do want to make sure that they’re not unique situations in a city that particularly complex intersection or — actually, they tend to be places where people get into accidents a lot because they’re just — perhaps there’s — and like I said, an unsafe intersection or bad road markings or a lot of weather challenges. So I think we would release unsupervised gradually to the customer fleet as we feel like a particular geography is confirmed to be safe.”
This could be one of those examples that Tesla just has to figure out.
Highway Operation
Full Self-Driving is already pretty good at routine roadway navigation, so I don’t have too much to report here.
However, I was happy with FSD’s decision-making at several points, including its choice not to pass a slightly slower car and remain in the right lane as we approached the off-ramp:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 highway operation: generally happy with the performance here, especially behavior near the exit
Love that the car got over in the right lane after its final pass, and stayed there as the off ramp was approaching https://t.co/qVRVhg6XGR pic.twitter.com/1ELwHf2XKS
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Better Maneuvering at Stop Signs
Many FSD users report some strange operations at stop signs, especially four-way intersections where there is a stop sign and a line on the road, and they’re not even with one another.
I experienced this quite frequently and found that FSD would actually double stop: once at the stop sign and again at the line.
This created some interesting scenarios for me and I had many cars honk at me when the second stop would happen. Other vehicles that had waved me on to proceed through the intersection would become frustrated at the second stop.
FSD seems to have worked through this particular maneuver:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 with a singular stop at the correct spot
No double stopping anymore in my experience https://t.co/Wd0TaNjc1R pic.twitter.com/CdQPvJHaAM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
FSD should know to go to the more appropriate location (whichever provides better visibility), and proceed when it is the car’s turn to move. The double stop really ruined the flow of traffic at times and generally caused some frustration from other drivers.
News
Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla has a plan to make Hardware 3 owners whole after CEO Elon Musk admitted that those with that self-driving chip in their cars will not have access to unsupervised Full Self-Driving.
The company’s strategy is so crazy that it is sort of hard to believe.
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla owners with HW3 finally get their answer: https://t.co/CSZTKKkWXx
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 22, 2026
During the Tesla Q1 earnings call on Wednesday, Musk finally clarified what the company’s plans are for Hardware 3 owners, what they will be offered, and what Tesla will have to do internally to prepare for it.
The answer was somewhat mind-boggling.
Musk said:
“Unfortunately, Hardware 3 — I wish it were otherwise, but Hardware 3 simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD. We did think at one point it would have that, but relative to Hardware 4, it has only 1/8 of the memory bandwidth of Hardware 4. And memory bandwidth is one of the key elements needed for unsupervised FSD.”
He continued, stating that HW3 owners would have the opportunity to trade their cars in at a discounted rate in order to get the AI4 chip:
“So for customers that have bought FSD, what we’re offering is essentially a trade-in — like a discounted trade-in for cars that have AI4 hardware, and we’ll also be offering the ability to upgrade the car, to replace the computer. And you also need to replace the cameras, unfortunately, to go to Hardware 4.”
Obviously, Tesla has a lot of people to work with and make this whole thing right. Musk was adamant that HW3 would be capable of FSD, and now that the company has finally admitted that it is not, there are some things that could come of this.
There has been open talk about some sort of class action lawsuit against Tesla. The promises that Tesla made previously could be considered a breach of contract or even false advertising, and that’s according to Grok, Musk’s own AI program.
Musk went on to say that Tesla would likely have to establish new microfactories to effectively and efficiently replace HW3 computers and cameras:
…So to do this efficiently, we’re going to have to set up, like kind of micro factories or small factories in major metropolitan areas in order to do it efficiently. Because if it’s done just at the service center, it is extremely slow to do so and inefficient. So we basically need like many production lines to make the change.”
This is going to be an extremely costly process, especially if Tesla has to buy real estate, properties, and equipment to complete this work. Additionally, there was no wording on pricing, but Musk never said it would be free. It will likely come with some kind of price tag, and HW3 owners, after being left hanging for so long, will have something to say about that.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just got pulled into the biggest Weapons Program in U.S. history
SpaceX joins the Golden Dome software group, deepening its role in America’s most expensive defense program.
SpaceX has joined a nine-company group developing the core operating software for the Golden Dome, America’s next-generation missile defense system. According to a Bloomberg report, SpaceX is focused on integrating satellite communications for military operations and is working alongside eight other defense and artificial intelligence companies, including Anduril Industries, Palantir Technologies, and Aalyria Technologies, to build software connecting missile defense capabilities.
The Golden Dome concept dates back to President Trump’s 2024 campaign, and on January 27, 2025, he signed an executive order directing the U.S. Armed Forces to construct the system before the end of his term. The system is planned to employ a constellation of thousands of satellites equipped with interceptors, with data centers in space providing automated control through an AI network.
FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan
Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director of the Golden Dome initiative, has described the software layer as a “glue layer” that would enable officers to manage and control radars, sensors, and missile batteries across services. The consortium is aiming to test the platform this summer.
Trump selected a design in May 2025 with a $175 billion price tag, expected to be operational by the end of his term in 2029, though the Congressional Budget Office projected the cost could reach $831 billion over two decades.
The Golden Dome role is only the latest in a string of military wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported, the U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency, covering two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027. That came on top of more than $22 billion in government contracts held by SpaceX as of 2024, per CEO Gwynne Shotwell, spanning NASA resupply missions, classified intelligence satellites through its Starshield program, and military broadband.
The accumulation of defense contracts, now including a seat at the table on the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, positions SpaceX as the dominant infrastructure provider for American national security in space. With a SpaceX IPO still on the horizon, each new contract adds weight to what is already one of the most consequential companies in aerospace history, raising real questions about how much of America’s defense architecture will depend on a single private operator before it ever trades publicly.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how
