• Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    A success does not include leaving a victim of failed experimental medicine with a non-functional implant. In contrast to how animal subjects are used as test subjects (often conducted with less oversight than there should be), using experimental medicine on volunteering patients should be done not just to collect better data than the chimps before them supplied, but with the genuine expectation that the product in question will benefit the patient beyond their usefulness as a test subject for continued product development.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Through software updates, they were able to alleviate the problem. They are a bit vague in the article but it’s not a total loss and more than he had before the operation.

      Tbh though, the real test is how his brain accommodates it over the years and if it starts getting complicated later.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Also, this was the very first test implant into a human. At this point in testing “doesn’t harm the patient” is a perfectly good result to call a success.

        Honestly, people calling Neuralink a failure because the first patient didn’t get up and start dancing are just showing themselves to be either ignorant of the process or ridiculously biased.