I think I can answer this. Scientists do not control the definition of the word 'science'.
I have to disagree. I've never encountered any objective definition of science other than that it is, essentially, "what scientists do." Note however that it is what scientists -- working scientists, conducting original research -- actually do, as opposed to what they might profess, think or believe.
Let's say, for instance, that every scientist on the face of the earth was a creationist, by belief and profession, but that the theories and principles they actually utilized and implicated in their ongoing research were all evolutionary rather than creationistic. In that case we would have to say that evolution was part of science but creationism was not. Likewise if scientists professed evolution but actually practiced creationism, we would have to say the reverse.
IOW scientists do control the "definition" (the content) of science, but they cannot do so by sheer intent, or by fiat, or by pronouncement. They must produce actual, productive work that manifests this content.
My distinction may seem odd, but from my reading I think it is much more common for scientists to work with theories they don't "believe" than most layman suspect.
In teaching a class on biology for non-science majors I gave them a working definition of a scientist as someone who believed effects have causes.