The article described the genetic study of this pathogen, which causes citrus variegated chlorosis—a serious disease of orange trees. A truly fastidious living being to those plants and to the species who cultivates them. An undoubtedly important work. But the first thing calling the reader's attention was a startling list of names. It looked like one of those stone-engraved memorials to honor the victims of some tragedy. But it actually was the list of authors.
   That's right, following a short and descriptive title there was a long list of the 116 scientists who had participated directly in the research work published. And we can be sure that each one of those persons was there by his or her own right, thanks to their contribution to the development of a complex, multidisciplinary and laborious project.

   Not very long ago such a list would have been unthinkable; but modern scientific research and technological development have evolved towards increasingly complex conditions which frequently make necessary the coordination of large groups. Big teams for big problems 
  With projects like this, the times of the heroic scientist confronting alone his fight to unravel the secrets of Nature seem a matter of the past. Indeed, the times of those 18th century English gentlemen of science are over. It also seems far the time of low-budget Nobel winners like the Curies or those of garage-based inventors like Thomas Edison. All of them evoke old black and white images in our memory.

   Is it over then for garage-science?. Can a lonely scientist have any future in an intricate technological society like ours?
   The truth is that along with great global projects, like the human genome, the end of the 20th century has witnessed the spontaneous flourishing of many little great breakthroughs from modest groups with good ideas and ambitious goals.
   For instance, Georg Bednorz and Alex Müller, working for IBM in Zürich, constituted a minimal working nucleus centered on matters certainly marginal to their employer. Yet, with relatively modest means but with a revolutionary bet on copper oxides, they turned the whole field of superconductivity upside down and won the Nobel Price for Physics in 1987.
   Looking for modern garage-based inventors is not difficult either. The richest Bill Gates in the world is a good example of craftsmanship and innovation from the bottom in the field of high technology. And, of course, not only him, but also many other creators of future with already famous brand-names like Yahoo! or Linux began like basement entrepreneurs. 
   The structure of DNA, the synthesis of Nylon, the "Big-Bang" theory, the discovery of PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) which prompted the boom in genetic engineering, or the recent discovery of the largest bacterium ever known are all examples of very significant breakthroughs resulting from individual striving rather than from well-planned coordinated efforts from large interdisciplinary teams. Thus, in these days too, we can be sure that scientific revolutions are still being engendered in the backyard of our official science.
   Could this Big, directed science and the small, free science live together in our society?. They should!. Our great projects and multinational efforts are good to consolidate our knowledge and apply it in creative forms to achieve goals and win challenges otherwise impossible . At the same time, the most successful individual contributions are precisely those questioning, challenging and revising that knowledge, thus leading to scientific revolutions and even new fields of knowledge. Both trends are intertwined in a criss-cross pattern which conforms the tapestry of our collective knowledge.
   The scientific and technological superstructures which make possible projects like the exploration of Mars or the human genome are a sign of today's technoscience. But we should avoid that this characteristic could lead to the exclusion or depreciation of a very valuable lower-scale scientific work or could misrepresent the free individual scientific enterprise. Thus, rather than a simple boost of Big Science, our science policy should evolve towards multiplicity. Multiplicity of scales, multiplicity of goals, diversity of technologies which could compete or add up to solve our problems. An evolution towards technodiversity which would be certainly profitable and socially beneficial.