“No one may have the guts to say this, but if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we?” asked James D. Watson – one of the co-discoverers of the DNA’s helix-structure – in 2001. In this essay on responsibility and ethics, I will try to comment on this question, which could not be, though asked more than a decade ago, more recent and better fitting to the moral and ethical dilemma – if I may call it – arising from pushing the boarders of genetics and its supreme discipline – synthetic biology – further and further. In the course of doing so, we – i.e. mankind, researchers, iGem-participants, everyone – try to establish more knowledge for the future in order to open up an increasing number of possibilities for the generations to come. This aim was also proclaimed by Craig Venter, one of the best known synthetic biologists: “We have one chance to live it [our life] and to contribute to the future of society and the future of life”. Thus, expressions such as “sustainability” and “responsibility” are inevitably linked to any research in genetics or synthetic biology. Unsurprisingly, this topic was soon taken up by society, leading to a major discussion in today’s bioethics and bio-philosophy. To my mind, there should be nobody participating in research – and might it be as small as nothing but participating in iGem – who has not made up his own, reflected opinion on the question which responsibility a researcher has and whether there should be a certain moral boarder in research or not. For this reason, I would like to begin this essay by attempting to give a definition of central keywords in this discussion. The three most obvious are – simply by reading the title carefully – “responsibility”, “ethics” and “synthetic biology”. However, I believe that there should be a fourth keyword added, an aspect which the discussion points to: “life – and the value of life”.