By pretending that this meaning of the word does not exist (or is not obvious), you're being intentionally obtuse to try to score points. That is, of course, the most generous interpretation of your comment, there are other less flattering ones.
(edit to add: if it were written for me, the article would have used "chimera" in the title)
By the way, I believe you were attempting to 'score points' by pointing out the op's intentionality.
No, it is not. Communication is not about being correct, but about being correctly understood. Also, if we are being technical, "animal" was a word used prior to the development of modern biology, and it means what the article means when it uses the word, i.e. non-human animals.
The fact that scientists decided to reuse the same word to mean something slightly different is if anything a flaw on their part. They could have come up with a more precise term to disambiguate (e.g. "neural mobile multi-cellular organisms (NMMCOs)" or some such) but they didn't. As this article is aimed at the lay-person, it is perfectly reasonable (I would say obligatory) to use the meaning that is expected by that audience.
The headline as it shows up in HN was renamed to "In Search for Cures, Scientists Create Multispecies Embryos". This is a ridiculous act of pedantry that completely obscures the rather important fact that one of those species in "multispecies" is human.
This is like saying we should have used different terminology when Copernicus published his work on planetary bodies. Or science should have used a different name for Earth when it proven that our planet round? No, if people are inaccurate, you don't keep on using old outdated definitions and invent new nouns for the new meanings. You update the old inaccurate definitions.
People used to think humans were distinctly different than anything else on the planet. We are not and we are not special. We are animals. At the root of this debate is the fact that this idea deeply offends a select few, mostly religious zealots . The same groups were offended that the Earth was still Earth even though it's round. Animals are still animals even thought people are animals too. Gravity is still gravity as our definition of what it is and how it works changes.
But "chemistry" was coined to distinguish from alchemy.
Regarding humans as animals, I should probably have stated more accurately that since at least the time of Aristotle, the term animal has also been applied to humans (i.e. "man is the rational animal"). Animal, in this context, refers to anything that is animate (moves around, eats, etc.). However, we often (primarily) use the term to refers to those organisms which are merely animate, as opposed to those that also possess sentience (humans).
> We are not [distinct] and we are not special.
Empirically we are distinct. Our lack of specialness remains unproven.
> We are animals.
Both in the sense of biological taxonomy and that we have an animus, that is true. That does not entail your previous statement.
It's also still perfectly correct to use the term to refer non-human animals.
> The same groups were offended that the Earth was still Earth even though it's round.
What groups are these, specifically? As far as I know, these people never existed except in the modern imagination. The West has been aware of the Earth's roundness since BC. It is a central aspect of the Ptolemaic cosmology.
a. A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and a nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli; any living creature, including man.
b. In ordinary or non-technical use: any such living organism other than a human being.
In a technical context, such as a scientific journal, I expect that "animal" would include humans. In the headline of a science-focused mainstream media article, I think it's ambiguous. Given that the context, I think it's clear they're using the non-technical definition of the word.
We need to prevent these people from making decisions for society.
They are so incredibly ignorant. How can they look at humans and animals and believe that one is different than the other? How can they look around this world and believe that any of this could have been created by a higher being? This ignorance cannot be tolerated. This world will not be right until we get rid of them altogether.
I'm serious.