As a term，"Bioethics" had been in circulation for hardly five decades. The debate over its meaning，scope and application is being carried on in earnest in academic circles with little agreement. This is as it should he in a discipline，so new and important. Tomes have been written to elucidate，illustrate and defend what biological and medical scientists, philosophers, theologians, lawyers, and international jurists regard as principles and rules of bioethics. A case has also been made to expand the term to "Biomedical ethics". Some argue，however，that medical ethics would only be a subsystem of bioethics. Over the last decade a plethora of books have been published. That in itself is indicative of the compelling need to evolve a discipline which pertains to ethical，moral，and religious concerns on life and living. A working definition would be that bioethics is a subsystem of ethics pertaining to life and living and，therefore to the sciences dealing with them. What is desired in the name of bioethics are adequate and clear-cut conclusions on what values, norms, principles and rules should govern the burgeoning capacity of biological and medical sciences to affect life from its most initial stage as a sperm，ovum or zygote to the final termination in death. Never before in history had the community of biological and medical scientists wielded such immense power through knowledge，skills and sophisticated tools to manipulate life in all its ramifications. All indications are that this power is bound to increase exponentially，as biological and medical scientists, encouraged and stimulated by proven success, forge ahead with increasing discoveries in the ever-expanding discipline of biotechnology. Already，reality has surpassed the wildest imaginations of science fiction. The specter of misuse haunts humanity. The adage that war is too important to be left to generals may as well apply to scientists, as regards biotechnology. Should the exercise of this enormous power be left in the hands of scientists alone? The answer，if we listen attentively to the vocal champions of bioethics or biomedical ethics as well as national and international jurists, is an unambiguous "NO". If bioethics is the solution，in what form and manner and through what modalities should it operate? A specific question to be examined is the role which religion，in general，or Buddhism or more specifically Humanistic Buddhism，in particular，can play in evolving a system of bioethics to meet current challenges. 作為一個術語，生物倫理學這個名詞的流傳不到五十年. 它的意義. 範圓. 及運用，正在學術界展開認真的討論，但卻無法達成一致意見. 其原因應是由於它太新. 大重要了. 學者們撰寫了多本的著作闡釋，說明並捍衛生物倫理的原理和規則，這就是生物學家. 醫學專家. 哲學家. 神學家. 律師. 國際法學家認同的生物倫理原則和規則. 人們又用了一個例把這個術語擴展為 "生物醫學倫理". 但也有人爭辯說，醫學倫理也以只是生物倫理學的一個分支. 過去的十年中，大量的著作如雨後春筍般出版問世. 這本身就表明發展這學科的緊迫需要. 這學科包括了倫理. 道德及宗教對生命和生物的關切. 一個說得通的走義是，生物倫理是倫理學的一個分支，它包括生命和生物，因此，包括研究它們的各們科學. 就生物倫理這個名稱來看，人們的期望具充分埋由，也有鮮明的結論. 這些結論是關於價值觀念. 規範. 原則和規律如何支配生物學和生物醫學科學的成長能力，如何影響從初階的精. 卵. 或是授精卵到生命的終止. 歷史上還從來沒過像今天生物皇家和醫學家能通過知識. 技術. 及複雜的工具所具的巨大力量來任意支配所有生命的網狀相關部分. 所有這切表明，這力量是以指數在增長. 正如生物學家和生物醫學家 在為他們所己經證實的成就歡欣鼓舞，他們正以日益擴展的生物技術學科的不斷大量出現的新發現突飛猛進. 現實已超過了科學幻想小說的豐富想像力. 濫用的幽靈籠罩著人類. 有句格言說，戰爭是如此重要，以致不能留給將軍們去籌畫. 這句話同樣也適用於科學家，特別是在生物科學的領域. 是否應把這巨大力量的使用權單獨留給科學家? 如果我們傾聽生物倫理學家或生物醫學倫理學的大聲呼籲，我們的回答毫不含糊地是 "不". 如果生物倫理學是解決的辦法，哪一種形式. 哪一種模式可以運作? 總的說來，我們應當檢查這具體問題，哪一種宗教，或是佛教，或是具體地說人間佛教，能在生物倫理系統的進化時所面臨的挑戰中起到作用.ISBN/ISSN：1530-4108
