Well, of course. There's that old pithy/dismissive saying that goes "reality is what sticks around when you stop believing in it."
A lot of those are social constructs - things that go away if everyone stops believing in it, but not until. Money is a social construct, but the dollar bills in my billfold are definitely real, and definitely have value, until everyone stops agreeing that they do. The federal government is a social construct, and if everyone stopped believing in it, it would cease to exist, but until then defying it means men with guns are going to lock me up.
Intersubjective realities are definitely a thing, and definitely an important thing.
But I feel like most of the defenses of the slide attempt to elide the differences between objective, inter-subjective, and subjective truths. There are a lot of ways that you can reframe the statement that are pretty valuable - but all of them significantly change the meaning of the initial statement. Reality is what exists when we stop believing in it; gravity existed before Newton, and it will exist after everyone capable of comprehending Newton has died. The plain-text meaning of "Science is a social construct" is that this statement is false (or perhaps irrelevant), and I can't blame anyone for reading it as such.
You can say a bunch of things like "Science exists only in certain social structures that may compromise its results;" "we may be incapable of understanding how the social affects scientific discoveries, even in principle, and never look at it from a completely objective angle," "science is dependent on a vast superstructure of social, ideological, and intellectual presuppositions that are properly within the purview of sociology," and on and on are all reasonable restatements that have value.
But the initial statement is a troll; it is intended to provoke those deeper readings by saying something plainly and obviously absurd.