Ableism and NBICS
by Gregor Wolbring

August 15, 2006

Recently I gave a talk at a World Health Organization (WHO) meeting in regards to the World Report on Disability and Rehabilitation to be written by the 'Disability' Unit of the WHO. I was supposed to talk about key terminologies in the field of disability and the impact of new and emerging technologies such as NBICS (nano-bio-info-cogno-synbio) on data, rehabilitation 'health services' and disabled people. My presentation was supposed to provide appropriate and standardized terminologies in light of developments in NBICS. In accordance with these goals I presented a variety of concepts related to health, disease, wellbeing and disability/impairment and their impact.

I have already covered some of these concepts in my column Therapy Versus Enhancement and I urge the reader to go to the original article and to my report to read about the different models of health, disease, wellbeing, disability and impairment. In my eyes a relationship exists between the direction and governance of science and technology and these concepts.

I want to focus in this column on the concept of who is a disabled or non-disabled person, and the concept of ableism. Both of these concepts are impacted by NBICS advances and directions.

What is a non-disabled person? What is a disabled person?

Until now a non-disabled person has been someone whose body functioning was seen as performing within species typical acceptable parameters (medically healthy). The term non-disabled has been used as a counterpart to the medical/patient understanding of disabled people. However this is changing.

In the transhumanist/enhancement model of health every Homo sapiens body is defective, impaired and disabled in the medical/patient sense of needing improvement (above species-typical boundaries). Disabled people are those who are unable to -- or who do not want to -- improve themselves beyond Homo sapiens normative functioning (techno poor disabled). A non-disabled person is one who obtains the expected bodily enhancement.

Ableism

A variety of consequences are attached to the transhumanist model of health and disability. Ableism -- which was and is still used to justify the exclusion of and discrimination against people with certain biological characteristics -- is one of them.

Ableism is a network of beliefs, processes and practices that produce a particular kind of self, body and abilities which are projected as perfect and essential, while at the same time labeling deviation (real or perceived) from this essential self, body and abilities as a diminished state.

Traditionally, ableism has played itself out in society in two different ways. In the case of disabled people, the issue revolves around 'species-typical functioning' versus 'subnormal species typical functioning' (1). In the case of people who are not classified as disabled, ableism has revolved around the practice of a powerful group defining a particular ability as essential and the claim that the target group does not possess that ability. For instance, at the end of the 19th Century women were labeled as biologically fragile and emotional, and thus incapable of bearing the responsibility of voting, owning property, and retaining custody of their own children.(2;3)

Advances in science and technology are increasingly creating products to modify the appearance and functioning of the human body beyond existing norms and species-typical boundaries. The direction and governance of science and technology and the concept of ability are inter-related. On the one hand, technologies such as NBICS have an impact on the very concept of ability and how we judge and deal with abilities. On the other, how we judge and deal with abilities influences the direction and governance of NBICS processes, products and research and development.

A new transhumanized form of ableism is now appearing that takes into account the increased ability of science and technology to create products for body modification. It is based on "a network of beliefs, processes and practices that perceives the improvement of human body and functioning beyond species-typical boundaries as the norm, as essential and judges a non-enhanced human body as a diminished state of existence."

The Techno Poor Disabled and the Ability Divide

As more powerful, less invasive and more sophisticated enhancements become available, the market share and acceptance of enhancement products will grow in high income countries. This could very likely develop into a situation where those who do not have or do not want certain enhancements (the techno poor disabled) will be discriminated against, will be given negative labels, and will suffer difficult consequences.

For any given enhancement product there will not be a bell curve distribution, but rather a distribution jump from 'have nots' to the 'haves' which will lead directly to an ability divide. What will change -- depending on the social reality such as GDP, income levels and other parameters -- is how many people end up as 'haves' and 'have nots' (techno poor disabled).

The ability divide will develop between the poor and rich within every country. It will be bigger between low and high income countries than it will be within any given country.  Not everyone will be able to afford enhancement of their body, and no society will be able to afford to enhance everyone, even if they wished it.  Billions of people that today are seen as healthy will become disabled, not because their bodies have changed, but because they have not changed their bodies in accordance with a transhumanist norm.

The Choice is Yours

In general, it is important to examine the societal dynamics around redefining health, disease and disability/impairment. In particular, we must scrutinize the move towards a transhumanist/enhancement model and its impact on individuals, social groups (especially already marginalized groups) and the global community to better understand what can be done to identify and prevent possible negative consequences of NBICS science and technology.

It is  essential that we discuss in earnest the concept of ableism which seems to be ingrained deeply within global society.  Without discussing this we can’t tackle its transhumanized version, and the expanding ability divide. It might be time to set up 'ability studies' as an academic field, to look at all of the facets of ableism in different cultural settings and its relationship to NBICS.

Gregor Wolbring is a biochemist, bioethicist, science and technology ethicist, disability/vari-ability studies scholar, and health policy and science and technology studies researcher at the University of Calgary. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies; Member of the editorial team for the Nanotechnology for Development portal of the Development Gateway Foundation; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO. He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website.

©Gregor Wolbring, All Rights Reserved, 2006. Reprinted with permission.