The objectives of this study are twofold: firstly, to give an account of the current methods of knowledge production, and secondly to contribute a consultation piece on oncologists perceptions of non-technical issues regarding the ethical, legal and social implications of microfluidic lab-on-chip technology (MF LOC). Two connected theses statements are put forth. First, understanding the transformations of knowledge production will allow for a more socially and ethically informed mode of governance to emerge. Second, it is important to consider who might use the technology and how it might impact institutions and individuals. <p>Interviews were conducted with 31 Canadian oncologists during August 2004 to February 2005. Qualitative analysis was used to examine the oncologists responses. It was found that of the different types of knowledge production that were reviewed (Mode-1, Mode-2, Triple Helix, and Post-normal science) the Triple Helix thesis was most supported. However, an integration of characteristics of Mode-2 with the Triple Helix thesis best accounts for the current description of knowledge production. The principles inherent in Post-Normal Science provide a starting point for developing an approach for building capacity for an independent institution that examines the ethical, legal and social concerns regarding transformative technologies. In relation to the second thesis, the results indicate that MF LOC devices have great potential to transform institutional practices and affect individual lives. And it is important to understand that the oncologists studied constructed their understanding of MF LOC technology within a scientific and biomedical repertoire consequently, future research should assess the perceptions and concerns of other groups of people that are different from the scientific and biomedical repertoire.

The objectives of this study are twofold: firstly, to give an account of the current methods of knowledge production, and secondly to contribute a consultation piece on oncologists perceptions of non-technical issues regarding the ethical, legal and social implications of microfluidic lab-on-chip technology (MF LOC). Two connected theses statements are put forth. First, understanding the transformations of knowledge production will allow for a more socially and ethically informed mode of governance to emerge. Second, it is important to consider who might use the technology and how it might impact institutions and individuals. <p>Interviews were conducted with 31 Canadian oncologists during August 2004 to February 2005. Qualitative analysis was used to examine the oncologists responses. It was found that of the different types of knowledge production that were reviewed (Mode-1, Mode-2, Triple Helix, and Post-normal science) the Triple Helix thesis was most supported. However, an integration of characteristics of Mode-2 with the Triple Helix thesis best accounts for the current description of knowledge production. The principles inherent in Post-Normal Science provide a starting point for developing an approach for building capacity for an independent institution that examines the ethical, legal and social concerns regarding transformative technologies. In relation to the second thesis, the results indicate that MF LOC devices have great potential to transform institutional practices and affect individual lives. And it is important to understand that the oncologists studied constructed their understanding of MF LOC technology within a scientific and biomedical repertoire consequently, future research should assess the perceptions and concerns of other groups of people that are different from the scientific and biomedical repertoire.

<p>This essay describes the philosophy of science that Thomas Kuhn puts forth in his work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The question is, does his description of the scientific paradigm work as well today as in the examples he gave in the book?</p><p>The conclusion is that there are certain factors that make for a number of differences between science today and, for example in the seventeenth century. There is also a growing theory or vision of a post normal science laid developed by among others Jerome Ravetz. This theory or vision is an idea of a science close to peer-communities and fast as well as critical decisions involving opposite values.</p>

This essay describes the philosophy of science that Thomas Kuhn puts forth in his work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The question is, does his description of the scientific paradigm work as well today as in the examples he gave in the book? The conclusion is that there are certain factors that make for a number of differences between science today and, for example in the seventeenth century. There is also a growing theory or vision of a post normal science laid developed by among others Jerome Ravetz. This theory or vision is an idea of a science close to peer-communities and fast as well as critical decisions involving opposite values.