Does the theory of deliberative democracy assume human beings are qualitatively different from other animals? Why or Why not?

The theory of Deliberative Democracy is used as a discussion in a democracy to help develop legitimate public policy that is accountable to the people it governs and they allow participants of the democracy to understand and negotiate policy trade offs. The general principle of deliberative democracy is for a democratic decision to be legitimate it must be lead by authentic deliberation; meaning that it must be negotiable between those who are participating and those who are making the policies. In order to have a deliberation of in decision making you must have reason, something that human beings are born with and use when dealing with specific life changing events or for any matter that involves decision making. In the case of Biotechnology or life science, we must understand the history of nature; the history of nature was understood through gods or arbitration. In life science there are three different life class, first you have plant life then animal life, and finally human life, in comparing humans with animals the quantitative difference is none however the QUALITATIVE difference is that humans are able to reason and animals cannot. The discovery of DNA however changed the theory of life science because it discovered the essence of all life forms, the discovery concluded that all life forms are only different in a qualitative sense. When this theory is applied to the animals and humans the DNA shows that humans and chimpanzees are only 2% different from each other. This brings us to the Ethical Standard in which the question arises Can there be an ethical standard if Human beings are not quantitatively different from Animals? And the answer is yes, because humans have the ability to reason therefore the reasoning can allow humans to sign consent forms before they get tested on while animals