I disagree. I think there is plenty of room in well functioning science for both heroes and authority. As long as there is a strongly held understanding and belief that such heroes and authorities are NOT infallible, and there is a strong drive to question, experiment, and improve on results, even for supposedly 'settled' topics. Scientific heroes and authorities must come with some level of malleability and understanding that our knowledge is basically in constant flux, and what we think is true today may be proven false tomorrow. But there are plenty of people that are at the very forefront of human knowledge, and in their areas, I would argue they certainly are authorities (at least at the moment). This doesn't mean we can't question them, just that yes, they have a body of experience and knowledge that should be influential in their field. In the same vein, we can praise and admire the work of great women and men, and seek to follow their examples, will simultaneously acknowledging that their work is not, CAN NOT, be perfect, and that they will make mistakes. They can still be heroes while being imperfect. Hell, from a mythological standpoint, MOST heroes have major, glaring flaws. But they are still heroes, admired and upheld for their good works. To be honest, I feel like this understanding of authority and heroes in science is more useful than the outright denial of their existence in the first place, as acknowledging that you can do flawed work, but still be great, is an excellent lesson for any scientist to learn.