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.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
A new report claims that Apple is in the process of developing what would be the missing link for Tesla to get CarPlay.
Apple and Tesla have been reportedly working together for some time to give Tesla owners the opportunity to utilize CarPlay within their vehicles. While many owners are more than happy with Tesla’s in-house UI, which is seamless, effective, and smooth, some still want CarPlay, which does have its advantages.
A report from 9to5Mac now states that a new CarPlay technology that was highlighted during the Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) would potentially be the bridge between Tesla and Apple. With the addition of a feature known as “Route Sharing,” which gives a navigation app the ability to share routing data with the vehicle, Tesla would be able to launch CarPlay in its vehicles, the report states.
CarPlay has not been a priority for Tesla because it has done extremely well with its in-house UI, but some drivers are just used to it. Additionally, it could improve Tesla’s subpar Navigation or offer improved app capabilities, especially with iMessage.
Route Sharing is an intended addition to CarPlay’s iteration in iOS 26.4, which was released in March:
The addition of CarPlay would undoubtedly be welcome, but at the same time, it seems like Tesla realizes it is not of the utmost priority. There are so many things that Tesla is working on currently within its own vehicles, especially attempting to solve self-driving.
Back in February, Bloomberg had reported that Tesla was still working on bringing CarPlay to its vehicles, but it had not due to app compatibility issues and incredibly low adoption rates of iOS 26.
This bottleneck could buy Tesla the proper amount of time to develop CarPlay for its vehicles. It would be a welcome addition, and could be brought on with either the Summer or Fall 2026 Software Updates.
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
Tesla Cybertruck driver gets pickup seized for ‘legitimate concerns’ in UK
