Published Date: 2022-12-06
| Postmortem Analysis | |
|---|---|
| Timeline | 1. The software failure incident involving Neuralink's botched animal testing and rushed experiments likely occurred in 2022, as the article was published on December 6, 2022 [136969]. |
| System | unknown |
| Responsible Organization | unknown |
| Impacted Organization | 1. Animals used in Neuralink's experiments [136969] |
| Software Causes | unknown |
| Non-software Causes | 1. Rushed animal testing procedures causing needless suffering and deaths due to pressure from CEO Musk to accelerate development [136969] 2. Human errors in experiments leading to weakened research value and repeated tests, resulting in more animals being tested and killed [136969] 3. Lack of preparation by testing staff in a high-pressure environment leading to mistakes in experiments [136969] 4. Musk's impatience and demands for speed in research progress leading to rushed schedules and last-minute changes before surgeries, raising risks to the animals [136969] 5. Mistakes in surgeries such as implanting devices of the wrong size in animals' heads and implanting devices on the wrong vertebrae, leading to unnecessary animal deaths [136969] |
| Impacts | unknown |
| Preventions | 1. Implementing a more deliberate testing approach where researchers test one element at a time in an animal study and draw relevant conclusions before moving on to more animal tests could have prevented the software failure incident [136969]. 2. Ensuring thorough preparation before conducting experiments to avoid mistakes that lead to unnecessary animal deaths could have prevented the software failure incident [136969]. 3. Providing adequate time for surgeries and procedures on animals to prevent rushed and potentially harmful actions could have prevented the software failure incident [136969]. 4. Following a more cautious and methodical approach to research and testing, rather than succumbing to pressure to accelerate development, could have prevented the software failure incident [136969]. |
| Fixes | unknown | References | 1. Sources familiar with the investigation and company operations who spoke to Reuters [Article 136969] 2. Dozens of Neuralink documents reviewed by Reuters [Article 136969] 3. More than 20 current and former employees interviewed by Reuters [Article 136969] |
| Category | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Recurring | unknown | The articles do not mention any software failure incidents related to Neuralink or any other organization. Therefore, there is no information available to address the question about the recurrence of a software failure incident within the same organization or across multiple organizations. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) | unknown | The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to the development phases, whether in design or operation. Therefore, the information regarding the software failure incident occurring due to the development phases is unknown. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) | within_system | The software failure incident related to Neuralink's animal testing issues can be categorized as a failure within the system. The failure was primarily due to contributing factors originating from within the company's operations, particularly related to the rushed nature of animal testing, botched experiments, mistakes in surgeries, and pressure from CEO Elon Musk to accelerate development [136969]. The incidents of failed tests, errors in surgeries, and the need for repeated experiments leading to increased animal deaths were all internal issues within Neuralink's operations and decision-making processes. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) | human_actions | (a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions: - The software failure incident at Neuralink was not directly related to non-human actions but rather to the animal testing procedures and experiments conducted by the company [136969]. (b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions: - The software failure incident at Neuralink was primarily attributed to human actions, specifically mistakes made during animal testing procedures, such as implanting devices of the wrong size in animals' heads and implanting devices on the wrong vertebrae of animals [136969]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) | unknown | (a) The software failure incident occurring due to hardware: - The articles do not mention any software failure incident occurring due to contributing factors originating in hardware. Therefore, there is no information available regarding a software failure incident linked to hardware issues. (b) The software failure incident occurring due to software: - The articles do not specifically mention a software failure incident in the context of traditional software bugs, faults, or errors. The focus of the articles is on the animal testing practices and ethical concerns at Neuralink, rather than a software failure incident in the typical sense. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) | unknown | The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to a malicious or non-malicious objective. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) | unknown | The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to poor decisions or accidental decisions. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) | unknown | The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to development incompetence or accidental factors. |
| Duration | unknown | The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to Neuralink or its operations. Therefore, the duration of the software failure incident, whether permanent or temporary, is unknown. |
| Behaviour | other | (a) crash: The articles do not mention any software crashes that led to the system losing state and not performing its intended functions. (b) omission: The articles do not mention any software failures due to the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). (c) timing: The articles do not mention any software failures due to the system performing its intended functions correctly, but too late or too early. (d) value: The articles do not mention any software failures due to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. (e) byzantine: The articles do not mention any software failures due to the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. (f) other: The software failure incident reported in the articles is related to the mistreatment of animals during Neuralink's research and testing processes, leading to unnecessary suffering and deaths of animals. This failure is not related to the typical software malfunctions or errors but rather to ethical and operational issues within the company's animal testing procedures [136969]. |
| Layer | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Perception | None | None |
| Communication | None | None |
| Application | None | None |
| Category | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Consequence | death, harm, non-human | (a) death: People lost their lives due to the software failure - The articles mention that Neuralink has killed about 1,500 animals, including more than 280 sheep, pigs, and monkeys, following experiments since 2018 [136969]. - The mistakes in experiments led to unnecessary animal deaths, as some tests had to be repeated, increasing the number of animals being tested and killed [136969]. - In one instance, 25 out of 60 pigs in a study had devices of the wrong size implanted in their heads, leading to all the animals being killed after the procedures [136969]. - Staff accidentally implanted Neuralink's device on the wrong vertebra of two different pigs during two separate surgeries, leading to one pig being euthanized due to poor psychological well-being [136969]. (b) harm: People were physically harmed due to the software failure - The articles discuss how animals used in Neuralink's research suffered health problems and complications due to experiments, leading to some animals being euthanized [136969]. - Surgeons at Neuralink-UC Davis project were reported to have used the wrong surgical glue, leading to monkeys suffering and ultimately dying, while other monkeys had different complications from the implants [136969]. - Staff at Neuralink made mistakes during surgeries, such as implanting devices of the wrong size in animals' heads and implanting devices on the wrong vertebra, leading to harm and suffering for the animals [136969]. |
| Domain | health | The software failure incident reported in the articles is related to the health industry. Neuralink, the company under investigation for animal-welfare violations, is a medical devices company developing a brain implant to help paralyzed people walk again and cure other neurological ailments [Article 136969]. The system failure in this case is associated with the development and testing of medical technology aimed at improving human health within the health industry. |
Article ID: 136969