Advertisement

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 23–27 | Cite as

Mode 2 Knowledge Production in the Context of Medical Research: A Call for Further Clarifications

  • Hojjat Soofi
Critical Perspectives

Abstract

The traditional researcher-driven environment of medical knowledge production is losing its dominance with the expansion of, for instance, community-based participatory or participant-led medical research. Over the past few decades, sociologists of science have debated a shift in the production of knowledge from traditional discipline-based (Mode 1) to more socially embedded and transdisciplinary frameworks (Mode 2). Recently, scholars have tried to show the relevance of Mode 2 knowledge production to medical research. However, the existing literature lacks detailed clarifications on how a model of Mode 2 knowledge production can be constructed in the context of medical research. This paper calls for such further clarifications. As a heuristic means, the advocacy for a controversial experimental stem cell therapy (Stamina) is examined. It is discussed that the example cannot be considered a step towards Mode 2 medical knowledge production. Nonetheless, the example brings to the fore some complexities of medical knowledge production that need to be further examined including: (1) the shifting landscape of defining and addressing vulnerability of research participants, (2) the emerging overlap between research and practice, and (3) public health implications of revising the standard notions of quality control and accountability.

Keywords

Mode 2 knowledge production Medical research Stamina Bioethics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their instructive comments. I also thank Arianna Manzini for her encouraging comments on an initial draft of this paper.

References

  1. Blasimme, A., and E. Rial-Sebbag. 2013. Regulation of cell-based therapies in Europe: Current challenges and emerging issues. Stem Cells and Development 22(S1): 14–19.Google Scholar
  2. Crompton, H. 2007. Mode 2 knowledge production: Evidence from orphan drug networks. Science and Public Policy 34(3): 199–211.Google Scholar
  3. Frati, P., G. Frati, M. Gulino, G. M. Vergallo, A. Di Luca, and V. Fineschi. 2013. Stem cell therapy: From evidence-based medicine to emotion-based medicine? The long Italian way for a scientific regulation. Stem Cell Research & Therapy 4:122.Google Scholar
  4. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott and M. Trow, 1994. The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London, Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Kipnis, K. 2001. Vulnerability in research subjects: A bioethical taxonomy. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants 2: G1–13. Bethesda. National Bioethics Advisory Commission.Google Scholar
  6. Largent, E.A., S. Joffe, and F.G. Miller. 2011. Can research and care be ethically integrated? Hastings Center Report 41: 37–46.Google Scholar
  7. Lowes, L.P., G.H. Noritz, A. Newmeyer, P.J. Embi, H. Yin, and W.E. Smoyer. 2016. ‘Learn from every patient’: Implementation and early results of a learning health system. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 59(2): 183–191.Google Scholar
  8. MacGregor, C., A. Petersen, and M. Munsie. 2015. Patient access to unproven stem cell treatments: A human rights issue? http://www.eurostemcell.org/commentanalysis/patient-access-unproven-stem-cell-treatments-human-rights-issue. Accessed November 17, 2016.
  9. Margottini, L. 2013. Italian parliament orders €3 million trial of disputed therapy. Science 340(6136): 1028.Google Scholar
  10. Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. ----. 2003. ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva 41: 179–194.Google Scholar
  12. ----. 2006. Re-thinking science: Mode 2 in societal context. In Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia, edited by E.G. Carayannis and D.F. Campbell, 39–51. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  13. Özdemir, V., E. Fisher, E.S. Dove, et al. 2012. End of the beginning and public health pharmacogenomics: Knowledge in ‘Mode 2’ and P5 Medicine. Current Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine 10(1): 1–6.Google Scholar
  14. Rial-Sebbag, E., and A. Blasimme. 2014. The European Court of Human Rights’ ruling on unproven stem cell therapies: A missed opportunity? Stem Cells and Development 23(S1): 39–43.Google Scholar
  15. Smikowski, J., S. Dewane, M.E. Johnson, C. Brems, C. Bruss and L.W. Roberts. 2009. Community-based participatory research for improved mental health. Ethics and Behavior 19(6): 461–478.Google Scholar
  16. Vayena, E., R. Brownsword, S.J. Edwards, et al. 2015. Research led by participants: A new social contract for a new kind of research. Journal of Medical Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-102663.
  17. Wallerstein, N., and B. Duran. 2010. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. American Journal of Public Health 100( S1): S40–S46.Google Scholar
  18. Welch, M.J., R. Lally, J.E. Miller, et al. 2015. The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials. Clinical Trials 12(5): 503–510.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alumnus of Erasmus Mundus Master of BioethicsKatholieke Universiteit Leuven, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, and Università Degli Studi di PadovaNorth RydeAustralia

Personalised recommendations