Zooming in on Justice: The Case for Virtual Bioethics Conferencing.

Jecker et al. discuss principles for international bioethics conferencing that purportedly seek to make bioethics more global in scope. In particular, they address what they have perceived to be Islamophobia within bioethics. We agree that anti-discrimination and inclusivity should serve as core commitments for the field. Yet, we also see the need for the conversation to be broadened. So, while Islamophobia may be a real occurrence within mainstream bioethics, it may be better understood within a context of generalized religious aversion. In response, we propose an alternative interpretation of their principles for international bioethics conferencing—no longer holding in-person bioethics conferences. Whilst this proposal has some limitations, they are outweighed by the benefits of widening participation for minority and disadvantaged groups, removing significant cost barriers to attendance, promoting epistemic justice, and resulting in significantly diminished environmental degradation. If an obligation to move towards virtual conferencing is rejected, conference organizers must propose an alternative ethical framework for conferencing that avoids the implications of Jecker et al’s framework. Personal preference is not a sufficiently weighty reason to continue organizing in-person bioethics conferences.