My primary concern here is that the high-profile, high fashion prostheses are designed to draw attention in the way purely functional ones do not. There is something of a reverse-discourse effect with Herr and Davis’ prostheses, challenging the observer. It is in that challenge, and the rejection of the “oh how sad, that person has a “fake” arm or leg” that I see the benefit.

The Jaipur foot is more important for real-world need, the high-fashion arm more important for social and normative change. They are mutually beneficial.

The reality of the advanced prosthetic arm in the pic above (if my own experience as a user and researcher is a guide) is that Carrie probably cannot actually drink the wine from the glass she is holding with her prosthetic arm. Indeed, the suspension method shown likely limits her arm flexion to the 90 degrees that she is shown with in the picture. Further, the wrist does not flex (it does turn), and the wrist movement is not reliable enough to coordinate drinking. If she is going to drink that wine, I’d guarantee she’ll be using her other hand.

This was my own point: at least as far as arms are concerned, the promise of human ability (much less superhuman ability) is not one that we’re going to make good on anytime soon.

As I stated in my other comments, while I think that it is important to celebrate the actual achievements of rehabilitation engineers, if we continue to celebrate achievements that have not actually come to pass, it will eventually become difficult to raise money to solve problems we’ve already taken a victory lap for.

So I’ll definitely come down on the “gloom and doom” side. This is only necessary, however, because reality has been conspicuously absent from this discussion in both the popular and academic press. We can do much better, both in the lab, and when we write about the lab.

Jon Kuniholm