I would actually disagree with you on him being potentially morally righteous. While his reasoning will likely change my opinion of him as a person, it doesn't change what he's done. While in the future, given time to improve himself and learn from what he's done, he could be; at the moment, he will likely be morally dubious at best.
I do agree that we don't have all the information that we need to make an accurate assumption. That being said, based on all that we know right now, he's a monster. "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
Even if he is a 'good' man, he's actually furthering horrible experiments and projects, not just doing nothing. You can cut that any way you like.
Just another point I'd like to make: there really is no moral grey area. Good and bad or right and wrong actually do exist on a spectrum. What people call a grey area is actually just a morally dubious statement where the person can't be quantified into their expectations of good and evil. These people who live in a 'grey area's are frequently considered exempt because they can't be accurately quantified. If you do a bad thing for good reasons, that bad thing will have consequences. And while that good reason might end up helping, there will still be those who suffer as a result of that bad thing. The same can be said of doing a good thing for bad reasons, just reversed. Think of it as an equation. People hurt versus people helped, with a base multiplier of intent. While that is extremely simplified, hopefully you catch my reasoning.
Long story short, I agree that we need more information, but I disagree that we can't use the information we have now to make educated guesses. Judgement is a part of human nature, and you can no sooner avoid that than you can your reflection in a mirror. I disagree with the assessment that he could be morally righteous. The truly righteous don't do what he has done. Regardless of their intentions. Morally good, maybe. Righteous, no.