Global bioethics is presented as an evolving secular morality seeking interdisciplinary discourse, and dialog with diverse cooperating religious leaders. The need is to forge a means of unifying the people of the world around a common goal: the survival of human and other species over millenia in an acceptable and healthful environment. Seven core assumptions are stated. Acceptable survival is discussed historically with reference to a few developments from 1892 to the present.

The Report's editorial mandate is both to examine issues of current importance and to invite bioethics to broaden the range of issues it probes. Thus along with articles exploring the relationship between patients and doctors, or health policy, or any of the myriad other familiar concerns of ethics in medicine, from time to time the Report has published articles about public health, animal experimentation, or “environmental ethics” broadly construed. The most recent was the special supplement Nature, Polis, Ethics in the (...) November‐December (1998) issue. Some, of course, have argued that “bio‐ethics” ought always to encompass concern for issues beyond the bedside. When the biologist Van Rensselaer Potter proposed the term bioethics nearly thirty years ago, the field he had in mind lay at the intersection of ethics and the biological sciences in general. In light especially of Nature, Polis, Ethics's call for a substantive “humans‐nature ethics” it seems appropriate, therefore, to invite one of the earliest proponents of a generous understanding of bioethics to reflect on the character of the field and the questions with which it should grapple. Below Potter and colleague Peter Whitehouse share their thoughts on this most interdisciplinary of disciplines. —B‐JC, GK. (shrink)