Abstract: 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 the 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. The 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”.
