A Response to David Morton

David Morton's article, Some Ethical Issues in Biotechnology Involving Animals, he brings up some interesting, and some fallacious points. His last statment in his article was this, "The question is, should we do it, Or even start to research it? And what does it say about humans if we do?"

What does it say about humans if we do? That's pretty deep. What does it say? Human's love to learn and make technological advancements. We question everything, it is what makes us human. Why? How? Those three -letter words drive us to do many things. Oh, curiosity. We want to find a cure for cancer and researchers use many animals to figure this out. But, what about changing the genes of a sheep so that their lungs will be human lungs, so that when an emphysemic patient needs a transplant their is one available? The life of that sheep was created solely for the purpose of developing those lungs. No offesense, but why should a sheep donate their human lungs just so that someone can smoke cigarettes all their life? What does that say about humans? Surely, I do not think that is what God intended, if someone is using that argument.
Perhaps transgensis shows how much humans put other human's well-being over anything else.
But in certain situations you have to think about the well-being of the animal over humans, like with the emphysema example. When we were on the topic of animal experimentation the comment that a lot of the experiments with animals do not translate to humans was made. I think that transgensis should only be used for experiments where the results from an experiment will not translate to humans unless the organs or tissues are human organs and tissues, and the results have a greaqter purpose than color of fish scales. Of course not many people can disagree with the utilitarian point of veiw. Experiments should not be for human aethetics.
Question: What do you think the use of biotechnology and transgensis says about humans?