It's not clear what you're trying to communicate here. Yes, it draws a scary picture about the suffering of the "Animal 15". However it doesn't mean it wasn't "necessary".
Why do you put the burden of proof on me? You countered a usage of a word with a quote and no explanation. I took a wild guess on what you could possibly mean, and argue how that would be a non sequitur. If you make an actual argument I might agree, but it's not clear what your argument even is.
You are forcing me to guess. Even after I wrote it's not clear what you tried to communicate, you didn't care to elaborate, instead you're trying to force me to provide definitions. That's a ridiculous way to argue.
>> Musk’s promise was to revolutionize prostheses and engineer an implant that would allow human brains to communicate wirelessly with artificial devices, and even each other.
And from wikipedia:
>> In April 2017, Neuralink announced that it was aiming to make devices to treat serious brain diseases in the short-term, with the eventual goal of human enhancement, sometimes called transhumanism.[16][7][17]
It seems that while there might be medical applications of the developed technology it is not primarily developed for medical purposes. Plugging your brain to your iPhone doesn't sound like a great justification for animal experimentation.
Some people think that means we shouldn’t experiment on animals at all.
Some people think that the potential gains in relieving human suffering make it worthwhile.
Most people on both camps think we shouldn’t allow the animals to suffer more than is necessary.