Scientific progress has many facets and can be conceptualized in different ways, for example in terms of problem-solving, of truthlikeness or of growth of knowledge. The main claim of the paper is that the most important prerequisite of scientific progress is the institutionalization of competition and criticism. An institutional framework appropriately channeling competition and criticism is the crucial factor determining the direction and rate of scientific progress, independently on how one might wish to conceptualize scientific progress itself. The main intention is to narrow the divide between traditional philosophy of science and the sociological, economic and political view of science that emphasizes the private interests motivating scientists and the subsequent contingent nature of the enterprise. The aim is to show that although science is a social enterprise taking place in historical time and thus is of a contingent nature, it can and in fact does lead to genuine scientific progress—contrary to the claims of certain sociologists of science and other relativists who standardly stress its social nature, but deny its progressive character. I will first deal with the factual issue by way of introducing the main concepts and mechanisms of modern institutional theory and by applying them to the analysis of the cultural phenomenon that we call modern science. I will then turn to the normative issue: what is the appropriate content of the institutional framework, for scientific progress to emerge and be sustained at which level should it be set and by whom? Addressing this problematic is equivalent to conducting a constitutional debate leading to a Constitution of Science.

科学进步有许多方面，可以用不同的方式来概念化，例如在解决问题，真实性或知识增长方面。本文的主要主张是科学进步的最重要前提是竞争和批评制度化。适当地引导竞争和批评的制度框架是决定科学进步的方向和速度的关键因素，而与人们可能希望如何将其本身概念化无关。其主要目的是缩小传统科学哲学与科学，社会，经济和政治科学观点之间的鸿沟，科学观点强调强调了激励科学家的私人利益以及企业随后的偶然性。其目的是要表明，尽管科学是一种社会企业正在发生的历史时间，因而是一种应急性的，它可以而且事实上确实导致真正的科学进步，这与某些科学社会学家和其他相对主义者的主张相反，这些主张通常强调其社会性质，但否认其进步性。首先，我将通过介绍现代制度理论的主要概念和机制，并将其应用于对我们称为现代科学的文化现象的分析，来处理事实问题。然后，我将讨论规范性问题：制度框架的适当内容是什么，要使科学进步出现并持续下去，应将其设置在哪个级别上，由谁来确定？解决这个问题等同于进行宪法辩论，从而产生“科学宪法”。