As a consequence of the splendid response to the call for papers on the theme "Technology & Disability" this issue of DSQ continues that theme, building upon the previous issue, which was grouped around the sub-theme "Access, Equity & Citizenship."

In this issue, which explores "ethics, utility and possibility," a diverse of range of scholars from the USA, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden and the UK help us to draw insights from the international diversity of scholarship regarding disability.

In his article "Technology, Dementia & Ethics: Re-thinking the Issues" Clive Baldwin from the University of Bradford, UK reflects on technology, dementia and ethics in ways that help us not just to rethink the issues — but indeed the concepts we take for granted regarding technology. Likewise in a stimulating paper Marilys Guillemin, Lynn Gillam and Alison Brookes from the University of Melbourne, Australia explore two markedly different technologies, namely pre-natal testing and the cochlear implant in proposing the notion of "critical compromise" with regard to moral reasoning. In this way we are invited to explore the complexities and paradoxes of ethics in the worlds of disability and deafness.

Upon such a theme, further critical exploration is offered by Fiona A. Campbell of Griffith University, Australia as she explores "Selling the Cochlear Implant." In exploring the power of rhetoric and representation, as well as the normalization of the cochlear implant, Campbell offers an analysis that is important for other technologies of disability in identifying a technology of "treatability," which forecloses discussion on a variety of concepts such as deafness and normalcy. We can see the applicability of such an analysis to a variety of taken-for-granted technologies, not just the world of the implant, but the biotechnologies that rest upon the disabled body and the promise of treatment.

Such a critical analysis is furthered by Tania Titchkosky from St. Francis Xavier University, Canada in exploring "Clenched Subjectivity: Disability, Women & Medical Discourse." In this paper we are reminded of the way in which disability and feminist theory can be combined in very helpful ways. This is especially in terms of bypassing the pro-choice/pro-life arguments in exploring women as the embodiment of uncontrollable subjectivity and the reproduction of disability via media as "devalued lack". Such a feminist analysis helps us to move beyond the unhelpful polarities.

Of course, if we are not careful in our discussion of technology we can fail to focus on the aspects of utility, claimed by Peter Anderberg of Lund University, Sweden in his essay "Making Both Ends Meet." This article melds the descriptive and analytical in presenting the social model of disability in a way that introduces the FACE ("function — attitude, control and enabling") tool, which has significant implications for conceptual design regarding rehabilitation engineering and technology.

The theme of combining both practical technologies with critical analysis is further explored by Katherine Seelman of the University of Pittsburgh in an essay that explores the implementation of universal design and the availability of orphan technology. The introduction of an exploration of the social dimensions of such technologies is a welcome addition to the literature.

In an essay provocatively entitled "Ditching Dualisms," Lise Bird of Victoria University, Wellington, Aotearoa, New Zealand utilizes the results of interviews with small groups of education professionals and education related professionals to explore embodiment in the future, as impacted upon by new technologies. Such a futuristic research is helpful in terms of exploring not just technology, but the way in which technology prompts us to think about what it is to be human, not just today but into the future.

It has been a pleasure to engage with the diversity of ideas found in these two issues on the theme of "Technology & Disability". We hope that these issues will not so much provide a definitive word, but indeed that individually and collectively papers will promote the dialectic, which is a vital component of Disability Studies today and tomorrow.