Opposing perspectives on the full inclusion debate reveal a fundamental dis
juncture between underlying conceptual frameworks. Advocates contend that f
ull inclusion is a moral issue that cannot be resolved from a supposedly ne
utral scientific stance. Defenders of the traditional continuum of placemen
ts argue, to the contrary, that scientific research should be the dominant
factor in arbitrating between separation and inclusion. In this paper, I ex
amine the concept of scientific neutrality and its lack of tenability as a
foundation for sorting out the full inclusion debate. Subsequently, I explo
re how the assumption of neutrality plays itself out in the context of spec
ific argument against full inclusion and offer some clarification on the mo
ral nature of the debate.