On general principles, I agree with Kelley, in that we don't have time to keep up with every innovation in every science & technology. There are some exceptions, though. Earlier, you mentioned Talcott Parson's idea of "the sick role" in the course of discussion on anti-depressants. One thing that I was going to say (but didn't get around to saying it) is that Parsons' study of "the sick role" does not fit chronic illnesses (such as clinical depression) very well. Those who have chronic illnesses and permanent disabilities tend to become more knowledgeable about their own illnesses & disabilities and often about the practice of medicine in general also, sometimes their knowledge surpassing run-of-the-mill medical practitioners (e.g., Carrol, Marta Russell). They might build an activist movement, beginning with particular issues & expanding from them (e.g., the movement of persons with disabilities, ACT-UP, etc.). In such cases, Parsons' functionalist framework breaks down.
Also, sometimes prisoners become very well versed in law, some of them becoming prison lawyers & prisoners' rights activists.
One might analyze this phenomenon by combining Gramsci's comments on organic intellectuals & Foucault's remarks on specific intellectuals.
Yoshie