Why Science is a social enterprise

There are three prominent figures in history who study the social dimension of science, specifically in explaining why science is a social enterprise and focusing their paper on why it is important to understand it as such. These three experts on the issue are John Stuart Mill, Charles Sanders Peirce, and Karl Popper. Mill lays his claim to the history of the social science with his well-known political essay of 1859, On Liberty. Mill argues that knowledge is the critical discussions of beliefs of a society and its conception of right or wrong- essentially he states that knowledge is the achievement of the social group, not of the individual.
Peirce's contribution to the matter lies in several passages from his paper completed in 1878. Taken directly from the text, "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate is what we mean by truth, and the object represented is the real." This correlates to Mill's views on knowledge being the opinion of the masses rather than the few, what separates Peirce from Mill is that he instigates doubt and critical interaction into the society, as a means of obtaining knowledge.
Popper is related to Peirce in that he greatly emphazises criticism in the development of scientific knowledge. Where he differs from the other two is his belief that science only progresses when past theories and experiments prove statements made before the test or statement wrong. Everything should be tested, even laws that stood for hundreds of years (Newton's Laws of gravity, for instance.)
These three did have one major common ground- big science, which is the organization of large numbers of scientists bringing their different expertises to a project that combines the separate experts on the subject. The Manhattan project is a prime example of this, bringing together scientists with expertise in nuclear bombs, others in radio transmission on how and when to detonate the bomb, other scientists who control the blast radius and how far the effects of the radiation will reach, etc. The obvious question on the relation between science and society is with morals- is what I'm doing right or wrong? Even though there are breakthroughs in science, should we as a society pay a price for what can come out of it or fight through it to find out what advancements in science can be made. Stem-Cell research is another obvious example. Despite all the great findings coming out of the early findings into the research, George Bush put a stop to it because he thought it was morally wrong- a perfect example of science being a social enterprise, having to bypass society before it can be properly worked on for the benefit of society. As time goes on and more and more complicated issues arise, it will be incredibly important to cross between science and society, and discovering how to properly unite the two for generations to come.