A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series
First let me thank Andrew for inviting me to write a piece for his blog. Andrew states that his blog is about “how technology innovation should contribute to living in the 21st century” and about “providing a clear perspective on developing science and technology responsible”. I will focus on two aspects here. Under ‘Innovation for whom’ I look at disabled people and their visibility in the science and technology (S&T) and problem identification discourses. Under ‘innovation for what’ I look at the issue of goals and ableism.
Innovation for whom?
S&T have huge positive potential, however bringing the positive potential to fruition depends on the right social environment and foresight to identify societal and other problems, and the willingness to address them.
How do disabled people fare in a) influencing the S&T discourse and b) highlighting their problems? Science and technologies have an impact on disabled people in at least four main ways. S&T may develop tools to adapt the environment in which disabled people live and give disabled people tools that would allow them to deal with environmental challenges. This side of S&T would make the life of disabled people more livable without changing the identity and biological reality of the disabled person. S&T may develop tools that would diagnose the part of disabled people’s biological reality seen by others as deficient, defect and impaired thus allowing for preventative measures. S&T may develop tools that would eliminate that portion of disabled people’s biological reality seen by others as deficient, defect, impaired. And S&T may influence and be influenced discourses, concepts, trends and areas of action that all also impact disabled persons. However disabled people seem to be invisible in most S&T governance and priority setting discourses (e.g. see Wolbring (2007) Nano-Engagement: Some critical issues Journal of Health and Development (India) Vol. 3 No 1-2, pp. 9-29). It is in particular striking that especially disabled people who do not perceive themselves as defective are mostly absent from the nano governance and priority setting discourses. Disabled people are also not part of the geoengineering or the synthetic biology discourse. And the list can be extended. This invisibility does not only exist for disabled people but extends to many other marginalized groups.
Disabled people are also highly impacted by contemporary problems such as climate change and disaster adaptation and mitigation, access to water and sanitation, access to food, and energy and so forth and are invisible in the discourses around contemporary problems.
I highlighted for example in the 2009 paper A culture of neglect: Climate discourse and disabled people that
- it is believed that climate change will disproportionally and differently impact disabled people;
- the record of disaster adaptation and mitigation efforts towards disabled people is less than stellar;
- despite the fact that other social groups such as women, children, ‘the poor’, indigenous people, farmers and displaced people are mentioned in climate related reports such as the IPCC reports and the Human Development Report 2007/2008 Fighting climate change: human solidarity in a divided world, disabled people are not mentioned in these reports although they are uniquely impacted by the problems covered and
- the adaptation and mitigation knowledge existing among disabled people is not mainstreamed.
I highlighted in my nano water column that the first world water report ignored the different needs and insights disabled people have with respect to water and sanitation. The third edition of the world water report published in 2009 again ignored disabled people’s needs and insights with regard to water despite mentioning other marginalized groups such as indigenous peoples, women in developing countries, the rural poor and their children. A memorandum for a World Water Protocol (MWWP) was recently generated. It also omits the mentioning of people with disabilities. It states “Place particular emphasis on the participation, especially those groups of citizens that are under privileged, notably, women, young people and workers/peasants.”
It seems the right social environment and foresight to identify societal and other problems does not exist in regards to disabled people and many other marginalized groups.
Innovation for what?
The Converging Technologies for the European Knowledge Society (CTEK) report (PDF) states “Converging technologies are enabling technologies and knowledge systems that enable each other in the pursuit of a common goal.” If goals are the drivers what drives the generation of goals, the favouritism for certain goals? Is there a common goal?
Ableism is one concept that shapes goals people put forward and is often a goal in itself. Ableism is at the root or a major contributing factor of many societal dynamics in history, today, and very likely the future. Science and technology research and development and governance and different forms of ableism have always been and will continue to be inter-related. The desire and expectations for certain abilities led and will continue to lead to the support of science and technology research and development that promises the fulfilment of these desires and expectations. Science and technology research and development led and will continue to lead to products that enable new abilities and expectations and desires for new forms of abilities making possible new forms of ableism.
So what is it?
One form of ableism favors normative species-typical body abilities and perceives non normative ‘sub’ species-typical body abilities as a state of lesser being and is criticized by disability studies scholars for a while. However ableism is much more ubiquitous (for online articles see here and here). “This form of ableism is a main contributor to a social dynamic that leaves disabled people invisible in many discourses and only heard in certain discourses. It promotes a “we”, “other” dynamic whereby the “we” are the species-typical and the “other” are the ‘sub species-typical’. In its general form, it’s a set of beliefs, processes and practices that produce a particular kind of understanding of oneself, one’s body and one’s relationship with others of one’s species, other species and one’s environment. Ableism is based on a favouritisms for certain abilities that are projected as essential by certain individuals, households, communities, groups, sectors, regions, countries and cultures which at the same time label real or perceived deviation from, or lack of these essential abilities, as a diminished state of being. Ableism exists in many forms such as biological structure based ableism, cognition based ableism, ableism inherent to a given economic system, and social structure based ableism. The favouritism of abilities contributes to other isms such as racism, sexism, cast-ism, ageism speciesism, and anti-environmentalism. Furthermore certain issues are a reflection of the desire for certain abilities such as GDP-ism, consumerism and competitiveness-ism.
If one reads the Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information technology, and Cognitive science Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance (NBIC) report it mentions productivity over 60 times and the term efficiency 54 times and the term competitiveness 29 times. The CTEK report states “Europe may value global competitiveness and economic growth above all else or may seek to balance it against values of social and environmental justice.”
The jury is still out which abilities we try to support with science and technology advances. We have to choose which abilities we cherish and which ableism we exhibit. I submit that the fields of Ability and Ableism ethics, studies, foresight and governance are essential lenses for responsible S&T advancement.
____________________
Gregor Wolbring is an Assistant Professor at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Health Science, Program in Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies. He is Affiliated Scholar, Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University, USA; Part Time Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa Canada and Adjunct Faculty Critical Disability Studies York University, Canada. He is among others President elect of the Canadian Disability Studies Association and Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People’s International.
For further information, see:
Ableism and Ability Ethics and Governance blog: http://ableism.wordpress.com
The Choice is Yours column: http://www.innovationwatch.com/commentary_choiceisyours.htm
Nano Bio Info Cogno Synbio Blog: http://wolbring.wordpress.com/
What Sorts of People blog: http://whatsortsofpeople.wordpress.com/
“.. the Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information technology, and Cognitive science Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance (NBIC) report [] mentions productivity over 60 times and the term efficiency 54 times and the term competitiveness 29 times. ”
It also mentions various forms of “disabled” or “disability” 134 times. Too bad Dr. Wolbring didn’t bring that up, or tell us anything about what has gone on in the 7 intervening years. There are two successor volumes in the NBIC series he could have searched just for starters. Not that I think counting words is going to tell us much.
To pick just one area where work is ongoing that could inform this discussion, how about nanotech and prosthetics. Dean Kamen’s keynote speech at this year’s Nanobusiness Conference prominently featured DEKA’s work on advanced prosthetics and the (very positive) reaction that both disabled people and their families had after working with prototypes. It was a most inspiring presentation, which had the audience abuzz.
The Martin Bionics division of OrthoCare Innovations is also works on improving prosthetics, with support from the Oklahoma Nanotechnology Initiative. Specifically, they are developing superhydrophobic nanocoatings to make prosthetics more comfortable and less prone to infection, see http://www.oknano.com/oklahoma_companies.html
Hi Phil,
My reading of Gregor’s piece was that innovation is often justified in terms of what it will do for “disabled” people, but often the process of deciding what the “norm” is, what should be done to bring people up to the “norm” and who makes these decisions anyway, are less than clear.
But I should let him respond to you directly…
Philip,
thanks for your comment!
Indeed I could have mentioned the term disability in the NBIC report. Very likely most of the disability hits in the NBIC report are generated by the three article I wrote/coauthored in the NBIC report. I could have mentioned many S&T endeavours underway to fix disabled people. I indeed mention many in my columns and articles I wrote over time (for many various aspects of my writing on S&T I refer to my webpage and my 77 columns) . However many of the problems disabled people face are not solved by high tech bodily assistive devices and bodily assistive devices will not be available for all disabled people who have a problem that could be solved by them (I all the time have a global outlook). There is more to the problems of disabled people and to solving their problems than bodily interventions. And even if I would have had the space to write about all the bodily assistive devices interventions the reality still holds that there is a lack of visibility of disabled people in many problem discourses and that includes many aspects of the nano discourses (for example disabled people were not part of the nano risk consultations of the International Risk governance council).
I mentioned the NBIC and the CTEK reports as two examples of what goals drive S&T. Do you really think that the converging technology field would have generated the buzz if it would have been exclusively sold as a way to solve the bodily problems of disabled people? No. And disabled people were not the main focus of the NBIC report and are not the main focus of the general promotion of new S&T fields (not some subfields within a new field). But we so far have not looked hard at what goals make S&T advances succeed. S&T advances do not just happen. They have to be sold. Question is which goal fulfillments are promised by new fields. So what problems were promised to be solved by NBIC when it was sold. What is promised by synthetic biology, by geoengineering, by artificial intelligence….. What abilities are seen to be preserved or strengthened by different S&T put forward? This column was about suggesting new lenses for analysis and about highlighting missed voices. It was not about any given S&T but about broader dynamics in play.
Hmm, not sure about bringing ‘up’ to the ‘norm’ so much as having the norm not be so narrow and so prescribed. Not having a ‘norm’ and normal be all there is.
I do think this ‘ableism’ discussion is very interesting and important though it does my head in as a practical person thinking what the heck to do about it!
At the moment no idea, but will ponder with Matter, though thanks again Gregor for raising this issue.
Just following on from Philip’s and Gregor’s comments above, it would be interesting to know how many disabled stakeholders are directly involved with the development and implementation of technologies like nanotechnology.
Anyone have any insight on this?
very few.
l wrote about that for example here
Wolbring (2007)”Nano-Engagement: Some critical issues Journal of Health and Development (India)Vol. 3 No 1-2, pp. 9-29
and
Wolbring (2006) Scoping paper on Nanotechnology and disabled people for the Center for Nanotechnology in Society Arizona State University
Problem is that by now science and technology seems to change so fast that its nearly impossible to have a group like disabled people to be involved in a meaningful way on a constant basis. Reality is that disabled people still fight for access to buildings, food, income…. and the NGO’s of disabled people are so underfunded for the problems disabled people face thats its hard for them to build capacity in the fast changing S&T arena. Furthermore disabled people are underrepresented on the academic level which therefore leads to a lack of visibility within the academic discourse…
春夏に活躍している新作は続々登場!
ルイヴィトン、ミュウミュウ、シャネル、バーバリーなど高級ブランドのバッグと財布は揃えます。芸能人やセレブ達の愛用する商品は大サービスセール中!一番売れる商品は最安値で販売しています。どんなコーディネートでも合わせやすいのが魅力的です。毎日快適にお出かけましょう。贈り物にしてもピッタリです!お早めにご注文ください。
★URL:http://www.jpchanel.info/
★店長:宮崎百合子
★連絡先 [email protected]
Hey There. I discovered your blog the usage of msn. This is a very smartly written article. I will be sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your useful info. Thanks for the post. I will certainly return.