Shew also critiques how prosthetics companies market their products with slogans about “freeing” people who are “bound to their wheelchairs.” This framing is misleading, since many wheelchair users are not paralyzed, and many find wheelchairs empowering rather than limiting. By casting wheelchairs as inherently tragic, these ads erase disabled people’s satisfaction with existing mobility tools and shift attention away from making environments more accessible for all.

Media Narrative in the Prosthetics Hype Case

Shew points out that media and tech culture often glorify high-tech prosthetics as symbols of progress, portraying them as tools that “normalize” disabled bodies. In reality, many of these devices are prohibitively expensive, uncomfortable, or impractical for everyday use, meaning most disabled people never benefit from them. This hype reflects technoableism by celebrating flashy technological fixes while ignoring accessibility, affordability, and the lived priorities of disabled communities.

Arizona State University

Shew highlights that AI and robotics are usually designed without meaningful input from disabled people, leading to tools that miss or even clash with their real needs. When disabled voices are excluded from decision-making, technologies often reproduce ableist assumptions about what counts as “helpful” or “normal.” Including disabled communities as co-creators could shift design priorities toward accessibility and justice rather than fixes.

Exclusion in Tech Design

The article emphasizes that justice in research must extend beyond equitable selection also to ensure that disabled participants benefit from the knowledge and interventions their involvement makes possible. Too often, disabled people contribute data and bear risks, yet structural barriers and ableist research priorities prevent them from accessing the outcomes. From this perspective, advancing justice requires participatory research models that elevate disabled voices, challenge “normalizing” assumptions, and work toward a fairer redistribution of research benefits.

Implementing Justice in Research: Beyond Equitable Selection 

A. Shew, "Ableism, Technoableism, and Future AI," in IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 40-85, March 2020, doi: 10.1109/MTS.2020.2967492. keywords: {History;Medical diagnostic imaging;Artificial intelligence;Biological system modeling},

Ableism, Technoableism, and Future AI Reference

Case of Prosthetics Hype

Equitable subject selection is only the starting point for research ethics. While many frameworks focus on making sure disabled people are included in studies, inclusion alone does not guarantee justice if participants do not share in the benefits of the outcomes. We need to consider who actually benefits from the research, and whether the knowledge or therapy is accessible to the people whose data made it possible. 

Justice is More Than Fair Recruitment 

Disabled communities are frequently recruited because they are considered “in need” or "easily accessible". The research often generates data, treatments, or technologies from disabled participants that are later sold at high cost or designed for use by non-disabled populations. This dynamic leaves disabled participants bearing risks without proportionate returns. This mirrors historical patterns where marginalized groups were studied but not empowered (for example, the Tuskegee, Alabama Study).

Exploitation Risk of Disabled Participants 

The article critiques the way “vulnerable subjects” have been defined in research ethics. Labeling disabled people as vulnerable can lead to two unintended harms: excluding them “for their own protection,” or including them without giving proper attention to their needs and agency. Both outcomes sideline disabled voices and reinforce paternalistic attitudes. Disability studies offer an alternative view that emphasizes autonomy and self-determination, rather than a blanket vulnerability label.

Learn Before

Related

Learn After