Whenever people talk about the need to put limits on science, they tend to reference one of two things:
1) Applications of science with bad consequences, where the fundamental science that underpins these bad technologies also underpins technologies that are hugely beneficial, and where the net effect on humanity is positive (most weapons of mass destruction fall into this category - could we have modern medical imaging without people also working out how to make atomic bombs? Can we make fertilisers and dyes without also learning to make poison gas?).
2) Fundamental research in a specific field that has been reported on by a journalist whose interest is in selling copy, rather than fairly characterising the research that's being done, its scope, and its purpose (the example in the OP is a case of this - we are invited to be outraged at scientists playing God, and risking the purity of human genetics; But they are doing neither).
Researchers hope that some human–animal hybrids — known as chimaeras — could provide better models in which to test drugs, and be used to grow human organs for transplants.
Sounds like a good idea to me. They're not trying to grow a monkey man from these tissues that will go on a rampage until hunted down by villagers with pitchforks and burning brands.
But before we are told of this noble objective, we hear:
but some scientists question the need for such research
which might be worrying if it weren't true of every bit of research ever conducted.
Ethical concerns always seem to be more innuendo than fact, and while rarely explicit about it, are almost invariably religious in foundation - they start with the assumption that human cells are morally different in important ways from those of other animals, a position with no basis in biology.
Literally nobody is trying to create a monster. Which is a good thing, because if they were we couldn't stop them anyway.
There are plenty of examples of far less ethical experiments having been done on fully developed human beings. The idea that people fiddling with chimerical blastocysts are crossing some kind of line is absurd. But if they did, the existing safeguards against cruelty and abuse would apply. And history shows that such safeguards are fairly ineffective at best. Adding more rules might delay useful and harmless research, but it probably won't block harmful research, which is already unlawful.
Certainly there are some ethical concerns that need to be considered. But all too often, they boil down to "We would like to provide hope to transplant patients and improve the effectiveness and safety of pharmaceuticals, but we mustn't in case we upset the Pope".
The Pope and his followers can kiss my hairy fat backside. Give a detailed, explicit, and relevant description of how a given research project will cause harm that outweighs its benefits, or GTFO.
