What are the norms, behaviours, and institutions that allow scientists to maintain credibility, correct errors, and engage with society as trustworthy experts? This question introduces the concept of the epistemic community—a network of disciplinary peers who share standards for evidence, ethics, and scientific practice—and explains how this community governs itself through peer review, codes of conduct, and informal norms. Case studies—from the hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 controversy to human cloning fraud—illustrate both the strengths and limitations of these self-regulatory systems. “Big Science,” shaped by powerful institutional and commercial forces, is now eroding the ideals of communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism (CUDOS). While peer review remains a cornerstone of epistemic integrity, it is not always sufficient to address misconduct, especially when science operates outside traditional academic structures. As scientific influence grows in policy, commerce, and global crises, the challenge of preserving epistemic autonomy becomes more urgent—raising questions about transparency, accountability, and trust in modern science.