taz.de
Berlin Exoskeleton Raises Inclusion Debate
Rise-Exo-One", an exoskeleton developed at the Technical University of Berlin, is tested by a paraplegic woman, Jessica Dibady, revealing both the potential and the controversies surrounding exoskeletons' role in inclusion for the approximately 140,000 people with paraplegia in Germany.
- What is the current capability and limitations of exoskeletons like "Rise-Exo-One" in assisting paraplegics, and what are its immediate societal implications?
- Rise-Exo-One", a robotic exoskeleton developed at the Technical University of Berlin, aims to help paraplegics walk. A paraplegic woman, Jessica Dibady, trains with the exoskeleton, highlighting its potential but also the ongoing debate surrounding its role in genuine inclusion within the community. The exoskeleton, costing approximately €100,000, is currently not capable of enabling autonomous living without a wheelchair.
- How do the views of the paraplegic community regarding the role of exoskeletons in fostering inclusion compare to the perspectives of developers and researchers?
- The development of exoskeletons like "Rise-Exo-One" reflects a broader trend in assistive technology, aiming to enhance the independence of people with disabilities. However, the technology's high cost (€100,000) and limitations in achieving fully autonomous mobility raise questions about its accessibility and real-world impact for the majority of paraplegics. The project's focus on research and innovation rather than commercialization indicates a long-term perspective, with the potential for future improvements to address current limitations.
- What are the long-term implications of exoskeleton technology for individuals with paraplegia and for society's broader understanding of disability and inclusion?
- While exoskeletons offer potential for increased mobility, concerns remain regarding their impact on inclusivity. The device's high cost and dependence on assistive technologies raise questions about whether they truly foster independence or merely maintain dependence on external support. Future development should focus on reducing the cost and enhancing accessibility for broader community adoption.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing emphasizes the technological advancements in exoskeleton development, showcasing Ronny and the Rise team's work as a positive example. The headline (though not explicitly provided) could likely focus on the innovative aspects, potentially downplaying the critical voices within the paraplegic community. The introduction focuses on the user, Jessica Dibady, which humanizes the narrative but then shifts to primarily a focus on the exoskeleton, creating a balance that potentially favors the positive aspects of the technology. The detailed description of Ronny and the training process dominates the narrative, giving prominence to the success story and showcasing the positive experience of Jessica Dibady. The counter-arguments are included but less prominently than the exoskeleton itself.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and objective, employing terms like "assistive technology" and "paraplegic." However, phrases like "autonomes Leben" (autonomous life) in relation to exoskeletons could be subtly biased, implying a return to a pre-paralysis state that might not be realistic or desired by all. The description of Dibady's activities before and after the accident could be perceived as slightly minimizing the impact of her paralysis. Suggesting rephrasing to better reflect the complexities of life with a disability and emphasize adaptation and empowerment.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the development and use of the exoskeleton, Ronny, and the experiences of its pilot, Jessica Dibady. However, it omits detailed discussion of other assistive technologies available for paraplegics, potentially creating an incomplete picture of the options available. While acknowledging the controversy surrounding exoskeletons within the paraplegic community, it doesn't deeply explore the specific arguments against their use beyond a general statement of hindering true inclusion. The economic aspects of exoskeleton accessibility (100,000 Euro cost) are mentioned, but there's no deeper analysis of the financial implications for individuals and healthcare systems. The article also doesn't elaborate on the long-term effects of using exoskeletons or potential drawbacks.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified view of the debate surrounding exoskeletons, framing it as primarily a discussion of inclusion versus technological advancement. It doesn't fully explore the nuanced perspectives within the paraplegic community, some of whom may find exoskeletons beneficial while others express concerns about the implications for social inclusion. The potential benefits of exoskeletons are highlighted, but the potential downsides are largely presented as a general concern without specific examples or details.
Gender Bias
The article presents a balanced representation of genders in terms of the researchers and developers of Ronny, with Lukas Schneidewind and the Rise team highlighted. The use of gender-neutral language (e.g., Entwickler:innen) is also positive. However, the primary focus on Jessica Dibady as the user of the exoskeleton might subtly emphasize a gendered aspect to the technology's application, without explicitly stating that this is a gender neutral technology. While this is not a severe bias, consideration could be given to including other users from diverse backgrounds.
Sustainable Development Goals
The development and use of exoskeletons, like Ronny, aim to improve the mobility and independence of individuals with spinal cord injuries. This directly contributes to better physical health and well-being for this population. The article highlights the potential of exoskeletons to enhance the quality of life for people with paralysis, enabling them to participate more fully in society.