I think it's more interesting to honestly discuss the argument and its merits if one doesn't have to personally vouch for it upfront.

The moral framework used generally tends to determine where one falls on the major debates in ethics. As I happen to be aware of the different moral frameworks, I do not have the luxury of being beholden to an unexamined, implicitly "chosen" moral framework. Often times my internal debate is which framework is the most appropriate to evaluate the ethical question at hand. I am talking about hard ethical problems here like euthanasia, not the everyday things like lying, theft, etc.

To answer your question, while in my personal life I take a more deontological (Kantian) moral approach, if I were in a policy making role I'd take the pragmatic, utilitarian road; that bird would be sacrificed if it really did help advance science. Ecce homo.