Background Healthcare is predicated on the use of biotechnology and medical technology, both of which are indispensable in diagnosis, treatment, and most aspects of patient care. It is therefore imperative that justifications for use of new technologies are appropriate, with the technologies working as advertised. In this paper, I consider philosophical accounts of how such justifications are made. Methods Critical philosophical reflection and analysis. Results I propose that justification in many prominent accounts is based on the designer’s professional experience and (...) on expert testimony. I argue, however, that professional designers are not in a position to justify a new biotechnology or medical device if the justification is based on testimony or past experience of presumably similar technologies. I argue (1) that similarity judgments offered by instantaneous experts cannot be viewed as contributing (epistemically) to evidential justification of new and unproven technologies; and (2) that designers and manufacturers cannot endorse a technology’s effective function in a patient-care context until it has been successfully used in that context. Conclusion I show that an expert’s past professional experiences can never predict or justify the impact of a novel technology on human health. This is because any new technology leads to the introduction of new mechanisms with unprecedented functions. The new technology therefore needs to be studied in situ and justified as a newly created mechanism within the relevant healthcare setting. Ultimately, justifications of this type rely on the scientific community and society engaging in repeated experimentation and observation of the technology, and confirming its successful use. (shrink)

General Technology Course in senior high school focuses on skill training and the connection and comprehensive application of interdisciplinary knowledge, and it is a compulsory course for cultivating students' creative potential. However, GTC in domestic senior high school has low teaching efficiency and fails to cultivate students' creativity well. Fortunately, after years of theoretical and practical research in China, the Maker Education, which focuses on cultivating students' innovative ability, has produced well-recognized applied research results. For this reason, this paper integrates (...) the theories of ME into GTC. Combined the characteristics of ME and GTC, and followed the process of creation and the law of the expression of personality traits, we build a model of GTC based on ME to improve students' creativity effectively. In order to improve and optimize the designed teaching model, this study carried out three rounds of Action Research, designed the practical activities of GTC in senior high school, and revised the teaching model through action, observation and reflection continuously. Finally, this paper designed an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group adopts the recommended General Technology teaching model, and the control group adopts the traditional teaching model. Students were asked tested to take pre-test and post-test, and SPSS was used for analysis of ANCOVA and T-test. After analysis, the following experimental results were obtained: the teaching model proposed in this paper can improve students' creativity significantly and effectively; the adventurous, curiosity, imagination, challenge of students also have significant positive improvement. (shrink)