Ableism and Favoritism for Abilities Governance, Ethics and Studies: New Tools for Nanoscale and Nanoscale-enabled Science and Technology Governance

  • Gregor WolbringEmail author
Part of the Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society book series (YNTS, volume 2)


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.


  1. Althoff, Fritz, and Patrick Lin. 2008. What’s so special about nanotechnology and nanoethics? International Journal of Applied Philosophy 20 (2): 179–190.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Carlson, L. 2001. Cognitive Ableism and Disability Studies: Feminist Reflections on the History of Mental Retardation. Hypatia 16(4):124–146.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cozzens, Susan E. 2007. Distributive justice in science and technology policy. Science and Public Policy 34 (2): 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. (accessed August 4, 2010).Google Scholar
  7. Hind, John. 2005. What’s the word: Cogniceuticals n. medicines for saving and increasing cognition. The Observer. July 24. (accessed August 4, 2010).
  8. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 2008. Business plan ISO/TC 229 Nanotechnologies. International Organization for Standardization,
  9. International Sub-Committee of BCODP. 2000. The new genetics and disabled people.
  10. Miller, Paul, Sophia Parker, and Sarah Gillinson. 2004. Disablism: How to tackle the last prejudice. (accessed August 26, 2009).
  11. Maher, Brendan. 2008. Poll results: Look who’s doping. Nature 452: 674–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Omvedt, Gail. 2001. The U.N., racism and caste – II Opinion. The Hindu, April 10.Google Scholar
  13. Overboe, James. 2007. Vitalism: Subjectivity exceeding racism, sexism, and (psychiatric) ableism. Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women’s and Gender Studies 4.Google Scholar
  14. Roco, Mihail, and William Bainbridge. 2003. Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  15. Unit for the Promotion of the Status of Women and Gender Equality UNESCO. 2000. Gender equality and equity UNESCO. (accessed August 4, 2010).
  16. United Nations. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. 2007. (accessed August 4, 2010).
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Wolbring, Gregor. 2003a. Disability rights approach towards bioethics. Journal of Disability Studies 14 (3): 154–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. (accessed August 4, 2010).
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. Wolbring, Gregor. 2006. Human security and NBICS. (accessed August 4, 2010).
  22. Wolbring, Gregor. 2007. Glossary for the 21st century. International Center for Bioethics, Culture and Disability. (accessed August 4, 2010).
  23. Wolbring, Gregor. 2008a. Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement? Innovation; The European Journal of Social Science Research 21 (1): 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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). (accessed August 4, 2010).
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Wolbring, Gregor. 2008d. The politics of ableism. Development 51 (2): 252–258. (accessed August 4, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wolbring, Gregor. 2010. Nanotechnology and social cohesion. International Journal of Nanotechnology 7(2/3): 155–172.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Community Health Science, Program in Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations