Reflections from the Editors-in-Chief

By Leigh E. Rich

As clinicians, academicians, and policymakers know, what a difference one letter can make — and, yet, when it comes to the essence of the JBI and its long mission to engage ethical dialogue and discourse across disciplines and domains, it does not matter how “i/enquiry” is spelled. Sure, such a statement may be gauntlet-throwing at the pens of eagle-eyed copy editors and scrupulous grammar-wonks (me included), but (ironically) a line must be drawn when encouraging critical thought and inclusivity!

This choice once obliged in the spelling of a name has aimed to enable, rather than obstruct, the contents of the journal’s character. For “bioethics” is not an object but an “i/enquiry” — not an institutional add-on or a box to be ticked but an ongoing process of deliberation, investigation, and engagement and one that ideally involves scholars from different languages, backgrounds, regions, and cultures. That “i/enquiry” is indispensable to the JBI and best describes the journal’s promise in its twenty years of growth and practice.

As a (once) newly minted assistant professor, I had the pleasure of serving as coeditor and then editor from 2011 to 2016, during what could be deemed the JBI’s “formative” years. In reminiscing, my knee-jerk riposte is how “we were both oh-so-young then!” Yet during this time, the journal hosted seventeen symposia, covering topics such as global health, disability, moral distress, sexuality and gender, nonhuman animals and food ethics, prisoner care, reconciliation, arts and the humanities, the ethics of (in)visibility, structural competency, and scientism. These are topics that still demand attention, especially in a post-neoliberal era where many countries have weakened (rather than improved) geopolitical, economic, and environmental guardrails and the mis- and disinformation pushed by politicians and others suggest there may be ever fewer “adults in the room.”

While ethical deliberation (or at least the raising of questions) has become acknowledged in certain fields — a more accepted part of medical practice, mandates in funding and research protocols, a feature of certain business plans — “ethics” is still often an afterthought and “i/enquiry” an orphan of institutional policies that tend to demand adherence versus engagement. (A tricky balance, of course, as the U.S. Supreme Court illustrates in its unwillingness to audit itself or act worthy of the robe.) So perhaps the JBI (and its issues and “i/enquiry”) wasn’t that adolescent then (even if I still feel so unformed).

On the journal’s platinum anniversary, I find myself (many gray hairs later) reflecting on “old” issues (that aren’t so old) and trying to prepare for “new” ones — a reflective and predictive double-task for which the JBI is known. On the shortlist (undoubtedly wanting in scope and wisdom): It is time to bring back the “bio” in bioethics, after fifty years of being commandeered by clinical medicine — an emphasis on ecology, the environment, and importance of all entities (championed by the likes of Fritz Jahr, Aldo Leopold, Van Rensselaer Potter, and others). If we are committed, there can be such a thing as corporate social responsibility (as Howard Bowen suggested three-quarters of a century ago), care of the vulnerable, and embracing diversity and inclusion. (If we can send astronauts to space with slide rules, we can shelter and nourish people in all senses of those terms.) And “doubt” must be rescued from its weaponization, whether in politics, education, or medicine. As Karl Popper emphasized, what demarcates science from nonscience is a logic of falsifiability — evidence at best might corroborate a theory, with a scientist’s duty to interrogate basic propositions and attend to counterevidence. Doubt is essential in bioethical i/enquiry as well. But the increasing bastardization and performance of doubt by politicians, pundits, and the public in elections, public health, history and race, and reproductive rights (among others) merely (re)produces piles of what Harry Frankfurt dubbed “bullshit,” with generative AI further fueling the game. (And already engaging in “Rickrolling” …)

So, whether it’s spelled with an “i” or an “e,” the JBI has long been an “adult in the room” — ensuring we i/enquire deliberately and authentically, even if you like “potayto” and I like “potahto.”

Read the full article for free

Al-Sibai, Noor. 2004. Startup Alarmed When Its AI Starts Rickrolling Clients. The Byte, August 24. https://futurism.com/the-byte/ai-startup-rickrolling.

Rich, Leigh E. 2024. “Inquiry” or “Enquiry”? Let’s Call the Whole Thing On! Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 21(4): online first November 13.