Change or mutation? Reflections on the foundations of contemporary science

Some recent theories in the sociology of knowledge suggest that late 20th-century science differs greatly from earlier science. In this article, I examine two radical discontinuity theories - the new production of knowledge model and the triple helix model. I argue that change has historically been a main feature of science, and that radical discontinuity partisans overlook this fact. They consequently interpret certain transformations in contemporary science as comprising events that are unique and historically unprecedented. I contend that the perceived transformations taking place inside science occur within the framework of science's longstanding, fundamental principles: conceptual integration, science labour distribution and opportunistic niching. Today, new elements are still being grafted on to science in conformity with these basic principles. The emergence of “host laboratories” is presented as an example of grafting.