Ok let me try to explain myself a bit better.
The problem with most Western "ethicists" -- mostly the ameteurs although some of the professional ones as well -- is that the situation is always too abstracted. Almost as if the people in those situations don't really matter. Or if they matter, they matter in the abstract sense. Not just in Human Rice, but in Environmental issues, Stem Cells, Animal Rights, and welfare.
The people who oppose the research 'cause it makes them uncomfortable, well you can be pretty sure that neither they nor their family has EVER had a life threatening illness. So they feel free to restrict research in all sorts of ways. But they read something about the research and decided it was "icky". It wouldn't be "icky" if it would save their kids or their neck.
Or the ones championing welfare cuts. You can pretty well bet that they've not spent any time on welfare. The worst "poverty" they've had is not being able to afford some big ticket luxury item. So since they've apparently been able to convince themselves that the poor live quite well on 1,600 a month (Federal Poverty level).
It's the same old thing. We live like lords and decide for the peasants, but not as though those peasants were real living humans. And not only that, we can't be troubled to think of their needs. We'd hang 'em for entering the "King's Hunting Ground", no matter if they have to to survive.