本文嘗試由德國聯邦憲法法院之判決出發，探究基因科技之立法特色及相關憲法爭議。即便基因科技對於人類身體、健康，乃至於整體生態環境具有無法預測之損害風險，但鑒於其能為人類生活所帶來諸多機會與益處，因此在立法上並未禁止從事與基因科技有關之各類行為。但國家為履行其所負之安全保障責任，乃透過風險立法之方式課予相關人員特定之行為義務，以求能避免，或至少降低相關基因科技行為對人類身體、健康以及整體生態環境造成損害之風險。然而，相關行為義務之課予，乃涉及對於相關人員，甚至是第三人基本權利之限制，此即須立法者藉由利益衡量以為妥適之安排。再者，由於基因科技目前仍處於持續發展之階段，且對於該領域之諸多問題，目前仍未有充分之知識與經驗得加以掌握與解決。也因此，立法者為因應學術及科技之發展，於立法上乃運用許多不確定法律概念，同時並授權由行政機關在進行風險評估與風險判斷時，進一步將之具體化。是類情形也彰顯基因科技立法時，因規範對象之特殊性而使規範內容出現諸多異於傳統安全立法之特性。

This study attempts to investigate the legislation and fundamental rights on the risk of Genetic Engineering issues by looking into the judgments of Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. Although the genetic engineering could have damaging impacts on human health and even the environment, it also brings a number of benefits and chances to human life. This leads to the debates on whether the legislation prohibits little on a variety of activities regarding genetic engineering.
As nations have the responsibility for safety guarantee, particular behavioral obligations are to be relevant authorities through legislation, which thus avoid, or at least, reduce possible impacts on human and environment. However, these particular behavioral obligations could limit relevant authorities ‘and the third parties’ fundamental rights, and therefore require lawgivers to make appropriate judgments by weighing of interests. Moreover, since the genetic engineering is on a dynamic growth stage and continues its development, problems grow as well. Yet there are not enough and sufficient knowledge and experiences on solving these problems.
With the advent of new development of science and technology, lawgivers may apply a range of legal terms without precise definitions, and meanwhile delegate the administrative agency to concretize the involved risks while making risk assessment and decisions. This indicates the fact that the legislation regarding genetic engineering differ from traditional security legislation in many different aspects due to the uniqueness of the object.