even if we are comparable, thats the operative term, COMPARE.
To compare two things, you must use a variable that each can be measured on. So, if I have two cups of liquid, a comparison could be made about the relative heat of the liquids to each other or to the room, etc. The important part of this is that in any comparison, there are variables and there are the things that these variables are being compared too.
"Superiority" and "specialness" are not comparative variables. Superiority deals with rank, where imho, specialness deals with relative frequency (less frequency, more special). By definition or even just by the definition of the words, something cannot have general "superiority" or "specialness" when compared to another thing (I guess special is somewhat applicable, since it would be dealing the the frequency of the thing, which is a valid measure).
Ok, so, the most important thing then, are to define what variables are being compared with each other. Herein lies the problem. The variables that humans commonly use to distinguish themselves from one another may only be relevant to humans. Further, the value of certain qualities is dependent on both culture and species.
This isn't really a problem in any normal sense. The community aspect of ants is comparable to the community aspect of humans. Variables within the title "community" (gender roles, work habits, etc) can be compared. Of course, one must be sure not to assume human type distinctions (we tend to anthropomorphize animal behaviour to explain it as if it were a human in an animal's body), but there are still comparative studies that could be ran.
The problem is with the introduction of the word "superior". What does it mean for an animal to be superior to a human, or vice versa? The answer is that it is a meaningless question. Tigers and bears have superior claws and teeth to ours, when compared in regard to sharpness, however we would have far superior teeth to tigers and bears, when compared in regard to cleanliness.
As far as I am concerned, that is the best we can do. As soon as we say that hygiene is "superior" to sharpness, or whatever combination of factors, we are taking the subjective need that each species has for their physical characteristics and putting them into the context of another species' experience.
So, with regard to the common examples of genetic engineering and space flight, these are things that are inherently human. One way of expressing this is to say that humans are superior because we can make things that other animals cannot, or we can put in goal posts and say "when humans reach X degree of technology or X degrees of independence from nature we are superior", but every single variable that we are superior to animals in is a variable that is culturally specific to the human context. The entire concept of independence from the natural world is a human concept, thus, the fact that any other animal has not achieved it does not show any general degree of human superiority, rather it shows that the human condition has created a situation where humans value this type of autonomy.