Abstract
The values that shape what nanotechnologies are developed are wide and varied. Some hope to remedy environmental problems, others desire to cure cancer, and still others are looking for the next “indispensible” consumer product; but underlying these goals are deeper values that we rarely think about. Gregor Wolbring argues that many of these goals are shaped by our vision of which abilities are desirable and which are to be avoided. Wolbring calls this moral judgment of abilities “ableism,” and he uses it to show how even people with the best of intentions can help to create an increasingly inequitable world.
Originally presented at the Workshop on Nanotechnology, Equity, and Equality at Arizona State University on November 21, 2008.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Althoff, Fritz, and Patrick Lin. 2008. What’s so special about nanotechnology and nanoethics? International Journal of Applied Philosophy 20 (2): 179–190.
Campbell, Fiona A.K. 2001. Inciting legal fictions: ‘Disability’s’ date with ontology and the ableist body of the law. Griffith Law Review 10 (1): 42.
Carlson, L. 2001. Cognitive Ableism and Disability Studies: Feminist Reflections on the History of Mental Retardation. Hypatia 16(4):124–146.
Cho, Mildred K., David Magnus, Arthur L. Caplan, and Daniel McGee. 1999. Policy forum: Genetics. Ethical considerations in synthesizing a minimal genome. Science 286 (5447) (October 12): 2087–2090.
Cozzens, Susan E. 2007. Distributive justice in science and technology policy. Science and Public Policy 34 (2): 85–94.
Cozzens, Susan E., Isabel Bortagaray, Sonia Gatchair, and Dhanaraj Thakur. 2008. Emerging technologies and social cohesion: Policy options from a comparative study. Paper presented at the PRIME Latin America Conference, September 24–26, 2008. http://prime_mexico2008.xoc.uam.mx/papers/Susan_Cozzens_Emerging_Technologies_a_social_Cohesion.pdf. (accessed August 4, 2010).
Hind, John. 2005. What’s the word: Cogniceuticals n. medicines for saving and increasing cognition. The Observer. July 24. http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2005/jul/24/features.magazine97. (accessed August 4, 2010).
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 2008. Business plan ISO/TC 229 Nanotechnologies. International Organization for Standardization, http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/4191900/4192161/TC_229_BP_2007-2008.pdf?nodeid=6356960&vernum=0
International Sub-Committee of BCODP. 2000. The new genetics and disabled people.http://www.bcodp.org.uk/about/genetics.shtml
Miller, Paul, Sophia Parker, and Sarah Gillinson. 2004. Disablism: How to tackle the last prejudice. http://www.demos.co.uk/files/disablism.pdf. (accessed August 26, 2009).
Maher, Brendan. 2008. Poll results: Look who’s doping. Nature 452: 674–675.
Omvedt, Gail. 2001. The U.N., racism and caste – II Opinion. The Hindu, April 10.
Overboe, James. 2007. Vitalism: Subjectivity exceeding racism, sexism, and (psychiatric) ableism. Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women’s and Gender Studies 4.
Roco, Mihail, and William Bainbridge. 2003. Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Unit for the Promotion of the Status of Women and Gender Equality UNESCO. 2000. Gender equality and equity UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121145e.pdf. (accessed August 4, 2010).
United Nations. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. 2007. http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=259. (accessed August 4, 2010).
Wasserman, Anita, David Mahowald, Mary B. Becker, and Lawrence C. Silvers. 1998. Disability, difference, discrimination: Perspective on justice in bioethics and public policy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Wolbring, Gregor. 2003a. Disability rights approach towards bioethics. Journal of Disability Studies 14 (3): 154–180.
Wolbring, Gregor. 2003b. Science and technology and the triple D (disease, disability, defect). In Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science, ed. Mihail C. Roco, and William Sims Bainbridge, 232–243. Dordrecht: Kluwer. http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org/nbic.html. (accessed August 4, 2010).
Wolbring, Gregor. 2004. Disability rights approach to genetic discrimination. In Society and genetic information. Codes and laws in the genetic era. ed. J. Sandor, 161–187. Budapest: Central European University Press.
Wolbring, Gregor. 2006. Human security and NBICS. Innovationwatch.com. http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours.2006.12.30.htm. (accessed August 4, 2010).
Wolbring, Gregor. 2007. Glossary for the 21st century. International Center for Bioethics, Culture and Disability. http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org/glossary.htm. (accessed August 4, 2010).
Wolbring, Gregor. 2008a. Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement? Innovation; The European Journal of Social Science Research 21 (1): 25–40.
Wolbring, Gregor. 2008b. Is there an end to out-able? Is there an end to the rat race for abilities? Media and Culture 11 (3). http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/57. (accessed August 4, 2010).
Wolbring, Gregor. 2008c. Ableism, enhancement medicine and the techno poor disabled. In Unnatural selection: The challenges of engineering tomorrow’s people. Chapter 24. ed. Peter Healey, and Steve Rayner. London: Earthscan.
Wolbring, Gregor. 2008d. The politics of ableism. Development 51 (2): 252–258. http://www.palgrave-journals.com/development/journal/v51/n2/index.html. (accessed August 4, 2010).
Wolbring, Gregor. 2010. Nanotechnology and social cohesion. International Journal of Nanotechnology 7(2/3): 155–172.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wolbring, G. (2010). Ableism and Favoritism for Abilities Governance, Ethics and Studies: New Tools for Nanoscale and Nanoscale-enabled Science and Technology Governance. In: Cozzens, S., Wetmore, J. (eds) Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development. Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9614-2
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9615-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)