本文追溯基因工程 (Genetic Engineering) 發展史，簡述基因轉殖 (gene transfer) 技術，並將對基因轉殖動植物贊同與反對的兩造意見扼要陳述，然後從倫理學與宗教倫理學的觀點解析：無論是贊同或反對基因改造動植物，兩造都不約而同使用著倫理學中效益主義 (Utilitarianism) 的理論，亦即「最大化效益原則」。所不同者只是兩造對「何者方為最大化效益」的認知。由此看出「效益主義」的瓶頸，亦即：一、無論是就質還是就量以觀，吾人都無法確證何者方能真正達到「最大化效益」。二、要拉到多廣的面向、多長的時間，方能真正看出「何者方為最大化效益」(或「最小化傷害原則」)，亦不可知。 義務論 (Deontological theory) 的道德底線 (己所不欲，勿施於人)，在基因工程倫理思辯方面，依舊有其不可忽視意義。例如：基改科技公司與科學家不得貿然以「人」為新品種基改食品的研究對象；不得用「最大化效益」原則，來合理化基因工程無辜受害者的處境，而必須負擔起賠償責任。 然而這裡又出現了一個爭議性的看法：「己所不欲」所不可轉施的對象，是僅止於「人」，還是可擴大而涵括「人」以外的其他動物？基督宗教神學 (theology) 與俗世理論主張其底線在「人」。佛教哲學 (Buddhist philosophy) 卻是將底線擴大到一切眾生 (all living creatures)。 基因轉殖技術，在目前的官、產、學共生系統中，照顧到的往往是他們的共同利益。而倫理學界與宗教倫理學界，則較能跳開此一局限，審慎看待基因轉殖對人類、土地、動物乃至生態系統的深遠影響。兩造的爭議，未始不是一種「生態平衡」。

This paper traces back Genetic Engineering history, briefly reviewing the technology of gene transfer, and reviewing the arguments both for and against gene transfer in animals and plants. It will then analyze the ethical and religious considerations. Regardless of whether they agree with or oppose to genetically-modified animals and plants, they both use theory of Utilitarianism which, in other words, means “principles of the maximum beneficial result.” The difference is only in how to identify which was '”the maximum beneficial result”. From here we can see the bottleneck of the Utilitarianism. 1. No matter how we qualitatively or quantitatively measure a result, we can not provide a convincing proof that we will reach “the maximum beneficial result”. 2. We also do not know how broad and how long it will take to see which one is “the maximum beneficial result”, (or the minimum harm of principles). The ethical bottom line of Deontological theory (Do not do to others what you don’t want to be done to you), still needs to be taken in consideration for the ethics of Genetic engineering. Companies and scientists cannot rashly use mankind to research new types of genetically-modified foods, and can’t use "the principle of maximum beneficial result" to rationalize the unfavorable situation of an innocent victim, and must be responsible for indemnify to the innocent victim. But here appears a contrasting viewpoint again. In evaluating reciprocal treatment, do we include only human beings or other animals as well? Christian theology and common customs believe that the bottom line is "mankind", while Buddhist philosophy enlarges their bottom line to all living creatures. In the symbiotic system of the present authority, industry, and academic circles, transgenosis often concerns with their mutual benefits. Thee ethics academic and religious ethics academic can transcend beyond this limitation comparatively to think cautiously about the transgenosis’ influence to human beings, land, animals, and ecological system. Therefore both parties’ arguments are also a kind of“ecological balance”.