Developing World Bioeth. 2019;00:1–3. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/dewb | 1 © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Received: 18 July 2019 | Accepted: 26 July 2019 DOI: 10.1111/dewb.12242 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Contextualizing the role of religion in the global bioethics discourse: A response to the new publication policy of Developing World Bioethics At the end of 2018, Developing World Bioethics announced a new edi- torial policy setting parameters for the religious bioethics‐related arti- cles the journal would consider in scope 1 . In restricting this genre from publication, one of the journal’s chief editors argues that 1) public rea- son is the accepted grounding for bioethics discourse, and that 2) reli- gion‐based arguments “do not fall into the category of public‐reason based arguments”, and thus that the writings of religious bioethicists make limited contributions to the field of academic bioethics. Appealing to the “business case” in addition to the intellectual argu- ment, the editorial states that scriptural reasoning exercises and de- bates over varied hermeneutics “remove themselves from the dialogues that continue in our field [academic bioethics]” because they are relevant only to religious adherents or to “people who might be interested in knowing how religious scholars who believe in the dicta of a particular religion would argue about these issues.” We commend the journal for being transparent about their policy, drawing attention to a “field problem” at the interface of religion and bio- ethics, and for inviting commentary on the issue. We agree with the chief editor that scholars of religion must critically analyze scripture‐based truth claims when engaging in public policy‐related bioethics discourses, and that their writings, as long as they are placed within secular academic journals, must be relevant to audiences beyond the confines of a partic- ular religious community. At the same time we find the proposed policy to be unnecessarily restrictive, the offered arguments to be somewhat misplaced, and implications of the policy to be generally concerning. In this brief rejoinder we would like to highlight each of these disquiets. 1 | RESTRICTION: ARE SCHOLARS WITHIN NON‐LIBERAL, NON‐DEMOCRATIC, SOCIETIES WRITING ON HEALTHCARE, MEDICAL LAW AND HEALTH POLICY, NOT DOING BIOETHICS WORK? Public reason certainly serves civic dialogue and policy deliberation in liberal democracies. 2 Yet many societies are not secular, liberal, or even democratic, thus public reason should not be thought of as having uni- versal/global significance. For example, bioethicists operating within overtly religious societies such as the Vatican, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, must make ethics and policy arguments based on religious reasoning and rationale. In other more diverse societies such as Pakistan, Malaysia, and within some legislatures in the United States, bioethical arguments are more likely to succeed when religiously‐laden vocabulary is used 3 . Moreover, even within supposedly “secular” liberal democracies, in e.g. continental Europe, public reason is only one of several ways to deliber - ate bioethical problems, as much of what takes place in universities and professional meetings would be considered as part of the “background culture” according to Rawls, allowing for religiously grounded, as well as philosophical theory driven, argumentation 4 . Consequently, it appears that the journal policy may unnecessar - ily reduce submissions from scholars working on applied bioethics topics in a variety of contexts where religion may hold sway in overt and subtle ways. In our view understanding whether, and how, reli- gious values are mobilized within bioethics discourses across the globe is valuable for many reasons including that such work provides insight into the motive force religion and religious authorities have over communities and policy‐makers, and it furthers the search for homeomorphic equivalents within the moral constructs of religious and secular frameworks and by doing so furthers the search for com- mon ethical grounds 5 . Consequently, the journal’s policy may dis- suade scholars who can offer such insights from submitting their research to the journal to the detriment of its readership. Furthermore, we see journals as an important venue for engagement between diverse scholars and ideas. As such, it appears excessive to marginalizing scholars who see religion as important to their work as bioethicists, either because of their context or their intellectual background, by limiting their participation in the dialogue journals foster (by virtue of original articles, commentaries on these articles, and the lines of discussion between papers). 1 Schuklenk, U. (2018). “On the Role of Religion in Articles This Journal Seeks to Publish.” Developing World Bioethics 18 (3): 207–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12210. 2 We agree with a previous response to the Journal’s new policy that public‐reason, as used in the editorial, would benefit from further clarification (Wiersma, M., Ghinea, N., Lipworth, W. (2019). “Limiting Religious Contributions ‐ a Response to Schuklenk.” Developing World Bioethics, no. November 2018: 1–2). https://doi.org/10.1111/ dewb.12219). 3 Padela, A.I., Aparicio, M.K. (2019). “Genethics and Human Reproduction: Religious Perspectives in the Academic Bioethics Literature.” The New Bioethics : A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body 25 (2): 153–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/20502 877.2019.1606154. 4 Quong, J. (2018). “Public Reason.” In E.N. Zalta (Ed.): The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition). 5 Panikkar, R., Panikkar, R. (1982). “Is the Notion of Human Rights a Western Concept?” Diogenes 30 (120): 75–102.