If you buy the former, it seems to suggest we should be going in the opposite direction with the latter.
From there, the second statement a solution to a legal problem they have, and not the moral one they don't have.
You're assuming a lot yourself by telling me how I interpret the point about the line between humans and animals, and (in fact) you have assumed incorrectly.
The article includes a quote about how they intend to follow "all the ethical, legal, and social guidelines in place". So I don't think the point I made about their stance being contradictory is way off base. Of course, they could actually be aliens from the planet Omicron Persei 8 with zero genuine concern for human or animal life. Or whatever.
In formal logical, that means it's not a contradiction, unless you've already ruled out that premise.
Generally, I think bioethicists will look askance at attempts to skirt current guidelines around experimenting on human specimens by creating human/monkey hybrids that are human enough to be useful to science but not enough for the letter of the law to call them human. That's the context.
I’m not necessarily attaching a value judgement to this. I’m just pointing out that their public position is either poorly thought out or not entirely honest.