Against Public-Facing Religious Bio-Restrictionism.

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Bioethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Public Justification and Normatively Meaningful Bias: Against Imposing Egalitarian Accounts of Algorithmic Bias.Bioethics · 2026
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Muralidharan AnantharamanCentre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-3380-0402

Funding

This study was funded by the Wellcome Trust [Grant Number: 226801] for the Discovery Research Platform for Transformative Inclusivity in Ethics and Humanities Research (ANTITHESES) and the NUHS Internal Grant Funding [Grant/Award Number: NUS Start-up Grant/NUHSRO/2022/078/Startup/13]. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.Wellcome Trust

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent calls to include religious bioethics on the table in policy and other public-facing contexts have been made on the grounds of respect. This paper argues that these same considerations of respect point to an obligation to exclude religious bioethics from public-facing contexts. This is because public-facing religious bioethics is typically bio-restrictionist in orientation and thus involves making demands on others that people could reasonably disagree with. At the same time, respect for persons grounds a public justification requirement according to which it is wrong to make moral demands on others that are subject to reasonable disagreement. Proponents of inclusion of these views are thereby committed to excluding such religious bio-restrictionist views from public-facing contexts.

Indexed as

BioethicsPublic OpinionReligionReligion and MedicineRespectHumansMoralsbio‐restrictionismpublic justificationreasonable disagreementreligious bioethicsrespectsocial conservatism

Identifiers

PMID40562388

DOI10.1111/bioe.70013

PMCPMC12511909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.