A quick look at the leading scientific journals on development brings out one thing clearly: the almost total absence of positive, creative, green voices of innovator and inventors who are solving technological and institutional problems on their own without any outside help. Why is this gap so conspicuous? There could be several reasons: (a) we have become so cynical that we just cannot see any sign of hope, and the more pessimistic we are, the higher is our intellectual reputation; (b) editors put a premium on those contributions that tell us in a laboured way why the world is doomed, why nothing works, why markets, state and civil society are all set to disintegrate; (c) the contributions that describe empirical cases of local achievements are not considered intellectually rigorous enough; (d) the scholars are convinced that unless large-scale revolutions take place, there is no chance for small sporadic islands of achievements by unsung heroes and heroines of our society to make any major dent on the problems of poverty and deprivation; and (e) the conceptual filters and techniques of social analysis (so called participatory techniques included) do not equip a genuine seeker of knowledge to discover grassroots innovators and unaided transformers of social change. Millions of dollars are being spent on training in the so-called rapid method of learning and appraising rural realities and yet the result is often more of the same. In this paper, I will not dwell on what is wrong with the world. There is a lot that is wrong and must be set right soon, for instance, lifestyles of elites in the South as well as the North are totally non-sustainable. What I will discuss in this context would be answers that people have discovered to cope with the ironies of everyday life, and the inadequacies of given technological and institutional frameworks. The paper raises issues in communication in and about science and how the connections between 'little science' and the 'big science' can be made.