According to Imre Lakatos, Scientific Research Programmes have negative and positive heuristics which are tools governing how scientists "do" science. Positive heuristics tell researchers what they should do, negative heuristics tell scientific researchers what they must not do.
In the world of economics, which is the context in which I have studied philosophy of science, a very important heuristic is "Don't ask people what they want, watch what they do". To ask people what they want is seen as unscientific, as their replies will be structured by what is seen as socially respectable. The punishment for breaking negative heuristics is to be thrown out of the scientific community, socially ostracised, in order to protect the Scientific Research Programme from your pseudoscience. The reward for actively using positive heuristics, theorising and doing experiments, is to achieve greater social status and gain the respect of the scientific community.
Imre Lakatos’s contribution was to get away from the idea that the rules governing progress are inherently logical – heuristics are often ideologically determined, practical tools which separate different research programmes. The measure by which they can be judged is not their philosophical or scientific validity, but the success or failure of the scientific research programme as a whole.