A More “Inclusive” Approach to Enhancement and Disability

  • David Wasserman
  • Stephen M. Campbell
Part of the Jepson Studies in Leadership book series (JSL)


David Wasserman and Stephen Campbell call for a reconsideration of our understanding of ability and enhancement in light of the increasingly blurry line between bodies and environments. They advocate for a way of seeing human enhancement in light of technologies that do not modify a person’s body. Specifically, they favor a broader conception of enhancement that acknowledges that a person’s abilities cannot be evaluated in isolation from a person’s environment. This approach challenges the social model of disability by demonstrating that the distinction between a bodily modification and an environmental modification isn’t always justified. Wasserman and Campbell’s broader focus also demonstrates why it is a mistake for bioethicists and commentators to evaluate individual bodily changes in ability without considering how those changes would also change human environments.



The views expressed in this essay are the authors’ own. They do not represent the positions or policies of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Public Health Service, or Department of Health and Human Services.


  1. Aas, Sean, and David Wasserman. 2016. Brain–computer interfaces and disability: Extending embodiment, reducing stigma? Journal of Medical Ethics 42: 37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abney, Keith. 2013. Problematizing the “natural”: The internal/external distinction and technology. Synesis: A Journal of Science, Technology, Ethics, and Policy 4: T29–T36.Google Scholar
  3. Allhoff, Fritz, Patrick Lin, James Moor, and John Weckert. 2009. The ethics of human enhancement: 25 questions & answers. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Society 3 (3): 1–41.Google Scholar
  4. Betsy, Phillips, and Hongxin Zhao. 1993. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology 5 (1): 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchanan, Allen E. 2011. Beyond humanity? The ethics of biomedical enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Center for Universal Design. 2001. Principles of universal design. Raleigh: North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, Andy. 2007. Re-inventing ourselves: The plasticity of embodiment, sense, and mind. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32: 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doe, Tanis, and Amy Noakes. 2008. The effectiveness of assistive technology in enabling community integration and independent living: What we know now. In Is it working? A review of AT successes and barriers, ed. Tanis M. Doe. Sacramento: California Foundation for Independent Living Centers.Google Scholar
  9. Douglas, Thomas. 2008. Moral enhancement. Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (3): 228–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farah, Martha J., Judy Illes, Robert Cook-Deegan, Howard Gardner, Eric Kandel, Patricia King, Eric Parens, Barbara Sahakian, and Paul Root Wolpe. 2004. Neurocognitive enhancement: What can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5 (5): 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foley, Alan, and Beth A. Ferri. 2012. Technology for people, not disabilities: Ensuring access and inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs 4: 192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibson, Barbara E., and Gail Teachman. 2012. Critical approaches in physical therapy research: Investigating the symbolic value of walking. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 28 (6): 474–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goffman, Erving. 2009. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Herr, Hugh M., and Alena M. Grabowski. 2012. Bionic ankle–foot prosthesis normalizes walking gait for persons with leg amputation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279 (1728): 457–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Imrie, Rob. 1997. Rethinking the relationships between disability, rehabilitation, and society. Disability and Rehabilitation 19 (7): 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Juengst, Eric T. 2000. What does enhancement mean? In Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications, ed. Erik Parens, 29–47. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Mooney, Luke M., Elliott J. Rouse, and Hugh M. Herr. 2014. Autonomous exoskeleton reduces metabolic cost of human walking during load carriage. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation 11 (1): 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Palikarova, Stella. 2009. The ethical integration of brain machine interfaces:Toward the cyborgization of the disabled. Faculty of Information Quarterly 2 (1): 1–18.Google Scholar
  19. Smith, David W. 2014. Merging man and machine. Salt. Accessed 29 Nov 2016.
  20. Thorton, David. 2016. OPM encourages unscheduled leave, telework for D.C. feds on March 16. Federal News Radio. Accessed 29 Nov 2016.
  21. Tobias, James. 2003. Universal design: Is it really about design? Information Technology and Disabilities 9 (2): 2003. Google Scholar
  22. Wasserman, David. 2001. Philosophical issues in the definition and social response to disability. In Handbook of disability studies, ed. Gary L. Albrecht, Kathrine Seelman, and Michael Bury, 219–251. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wasserman, David, and Sean Aas. 2016. BCIs and disability: Enhancement, environmental modification, and embodiment. Brain-Computer Interfaces 3 (3): 126–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wasserman, David, Adrienne Asch, Jeffrey Blustein, and Daniel Putnam. 2016. Disability: Definitions, models, experience. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, summer 2016, ed. Edward N. Zalta.
  25. Wilson, George, and Samuel Shpall. 2012. Action. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, summer 2012, ed. Edward N. Zalta. (Summer 2012 edition).

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Wasserman
    • 1
  • Stephen M. Campbell
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BioethicsNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Bentley UniversityWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations