Sure I consider my ethics somewhat utilitarian, but I don't agree with this person on everything
"If animal testing helps us make progress, I'm for it."
Sure
"If we can use embryonic stem cells to cure disease, I'm for it."
This does absolutely no harm to anyone who could possibly feel it so why on Earth would any rational person be against that for other reasons than superstition
"If we have to nuke an entire area to eliminate one massive threat, I'm for it."
I don't agree with this. This isn't going to advance society, but destroy it. And if you nuke an area filled with innocent people you'll have the entire world hate you. I'm pretty sure this would only make the problem worse.
"If we're looking to contain a disease, I'm for locking all of the infected in one area and letting them all die off; it's cruel, but if that's the only way to stop the spread, I'm for it."
If this were the only way to stop it, ok. But in reality I don't think we've ever known when that would be the 'only' way to stop it, and in cases like Ebola where people don't show symptoms in the early stages, you can't simply seal them off and act like the problem is solved. I think this statement is detached from how situations would look in the real world unless you want to seal off very large areas with lots of people, and that probably wouldn't work and would do more harm than good anyway.
Voluntary human testing sounds fine too. Another thing I think is stupid is that people should decide what happens to their organs after they're dead. If they can be used to save others or for research, I think the state should be able to decide what should happen to them instead of them getting burned up or having them rot in a grave.