Even though science is the privileged way of knowledge in most of the contemporary cultures, it shouldn't be exempt from the same kind of rigour that social thinkers use to unravel the basis of power-knowledge in other institutions. By reading, for example, the ethnography of laboraties, the economics of pharmaceutical research, history of physics and psychiatry, one can uncover many hidden meanings that are not immediately evident to members of the scientific community themselves.
No one is saying that science is "wrong" because, while it CAN BE wrong here and there, ultimately it does work, as illustrated by Dawkins's quote. However, to say that a scientist, because of what he or she does, should be exempt from the hermeneutical examination of reality is very arrogant and pre-Kuhnian thinking. A scientist, like everyone else, comes to the scientific process with a lot of mental baggage, including values, ideas about the proper method, and a great deal of prior knowledge about what others have already claimed to have discovered. What one should conclude about science is that, it does have its subjective elements in it. It can come up with false answers. However, given the truth finding, testing mechanisms of science, our mistakes could be corrected. I have faith in science, more than anything else, as a process, but not as "the truth" itself.