Animal Engineering

Todd mentioned in one of his posts: "It's probably safe to say that no animal would actually desire to be genetically engineered in any way. They have lived happy and content lives for thousands of years without such interference. It's ludicrous and pretty arrogant to think we could help in any way."

I wanted to take slight issue with this claim. I do not think it is safe to say that no animal would desire to be genetically engineered in any way. There are humans that would be willing to undergo such processes, so why is it safe to claim that no non-human animal, given all the information wouldn't opt likewise? It is not arrogant to think that we can help animals, though thinking that we know what animals want may very well be.

Todd also asked "Is transgenesis and animal experimentation an abuse of moral agent status?"

Unfortunately, I think it comes down to a matter of intent. If transgenesis is conducted for the sole purpose of human benefit, than yes, a very good argument could be made for this violation, but performing an action, any action, to benefit not the moral agents, but the moral patients (e.g. non-human animals) is a different matter. Perhaps an actualization of transgenesis reduced the suffering of a particular animal in the long term, than why would this be an abuse of moral agent status? Yes there was pain and suffering immediately, but for an ultimately better long term good.

Question: It is erroneous to assume that the animal would select such experimentation for itself, but it is also erroneous to assume that it would not. Given this, is there criteria other than the benefit of the animals to take into account?