"Admittedly, the body of scientists, as a whole, does uphold the authority of science over the lay public. It controls thereby also the process by which young men are trained to become members of the scientific profession"

Michael Polanyi articulates a candid acknowledgment of how scientific authority functions in society. He observes that scientists collectively exert control over the definition and boundaries of science itself, asserting their position not just as truth-seekers but as authoritative gatekeepers vis-à-vis the general public. This control encompasses both the cultivation of knowledge and the norms by which it is disseminated, interpreted, and defended. Scientists possess specialized expertise, extensive training, and a shared body of knowledge, all of which endow the profession with a legitimate claim to guide public understanding of the natural world. However, Polanyi points out the subsequent consequence: the community of scientists becomes the arbiter of what counts as legitimate science, setting standards for evidence, methodology, and interpretation, and policing the limits of credible dissent or heterodox ideas.

The passage further draws attention to the institutionally regulated passage into the scientific community. The training of young scientists is governed by existing practitioners, embedding the values, methodologies, and assumptions of the current scientific paradigm. This training is not merely technical but social and epistemological, ensuring adherence to established norms and reinforcing the collective authority of the profession. Through this process, the reproduction of scientific culture is tightly controlled; only those who internalize these norms and skills are allowed full membership and, by extension, influence.

There is an inherent tension in this arrangement: while it preserves high standards and protects science from external misunderstanding or corruption, it can also render the scientific community insular, resistant to radical change, and liable to dismiss lay perspectives, even when criticism may be valid. The authority of science, therefore, is never simply a matter of objective knowledge standing apart from society; it is an ongoing, self-regulating enterprise that both empowers and constrains, shaping not just knowledge but the very structure of the profession and its relationship to the wider world.