Logic Applied To Glowing Monkeys

I am not a scientist. I do not earn money for working in research. Yet even I can spot that there's something logically wrong with this article, given to me by a friend.

The issue is within only four sentences, which, oddly enough, are all together. Here they are:

Three monkeys were successfully altered in this way, but only ANDi survived.
The jellyfish gene was used, Schatten said, because it is known to be harmless and because it is easily detectable.
ANDi appears normal so far - he does not glow the way a jellyfish does. But the two other monkeys who got the gene did exhibit florescence.

Okay. The first sentence says three monkeys were genetically altered before conception, with two dying and one named ANDi surviving. The logic starts fine there, but the next sentence throws a curve. It says that a gene from a jellyfish was used because it is harmless and detectable. Harmless? Two of three died, although we don't know if it was the gene. Yet, the third and fourth sentences point in that direction pretty conclusively. It says ANDi doesn't glow like the other two did.

If the gene was detectable by making the monkeys glow, and ANDi doesn't glow, under the conditions set by the scientists, it should mean that the gene didn't take with ANDi and he's normal. Further, if the gene did take with the other two, and they died, wouldn't that point in the direction of the cause of their death? Regardless, if a drug killed two-thirds of its patients, I don't think the FDA would classify that as harmless.

Taking a step back from the internal logic of the article, I have a problem with the research described--but especially if it's pursued and embraced by the same illogical thinking that's in the article. History shows that eugenics were all the rage in the first half of the twentieth century, but Nazi Germany's attempts at producing the master race raised the moral and ethical questions needed. Was it right to sterilize, imprison, or kill a human being because they were somehow undesirable? Was it acceptable to breed humans the same way as animals to reduce some characteristics while enhancing other characteristics? What of the societal implications? Wouldn't genetic modification create two classes of humanity, regular, dull, dim-witted, scrawny, four-eyed freaks and new, improved, genius-level, brawny, clear-sighted humans? Many such questions still apply to the genetic research happening today.

Will we, as a society, someday be forced to live a Gattaca-like existence instead of the life we choose? Would there even be room in such a world for the disabled, the wounded, or the born imperfect? Man will always have a choice, but mankind will also be forced live with the consequences of the choices made. I know that eliminating genetic weaknesses toward disease feels right, but all the years we could buy--even the world itself--will seem hollow if the price is our conscience.