If we want to say science is a byproduct of the social system we have in place, then I understand your point. We don't need that system to have science tho. You can practice science yourself. That's kind of the point of it really.
Being a gentleman scientist, back when it was a thing, required you to be a gentleman, that is, rich... and well, usually a man too, but that was how it was back then.
Science needs years of study, training in the use of complex machinery and strict methods, access and being able to understand scientific publications meant for peers.
Chances are you're not a peer. With much effort, under the right circumstances, maybe a stroke of luck in your youth, you could aspire to be one of such.
But you probably aren't, and trusting the science means trusting scientific institutions, men and women in white robes delivering what's, at this point in time, accepted as truth.
That's a big responsibility to bear of them, and if there's an erosion of trust in social institutions, then people won't bestow it upon them either.
You're describing the social constructs we currently have in place. Science, the practice, doesn't require complex machines. If it did, dissecting animals with knives and drawing what you see with pencil and paper and describing what you did and how you suspect the body works wouldn't be Science, but I believe that it is.
Today we have peer review journals, LHC, computers etc and we use that when we practice Science but the tools and the social structure are not Science. Science is a process and anyone can do it.
