It's unclear whether small reactors have any advantage if more of them are needed. But in places where less power is required and one small reactor will do the job, they may be a reasonable approach. Probably research should continue, but I see an alternative to uranium reactors as probably better.
I favor the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) and have spent hours studying LFTR technology. It is the closest thing to a panacea that I have seen. The fuel, thorium tetrafluoride, is a crystalline solid at normal temperatures but a liquid at reactor operating temperatures. Because it is a liquid, obviously a melt-down is impossible. Because it operates at atmospheric pressure, a pressure vessel is not needed. Also, it produces less than 1% as much nuclear waste as our current pressurized water reactor technology. Because thorium occurs with rare earth elements, enough has already been mined (and discarded) to last for decades with no more mining. The high operating temperature makes it practical to use the Brayton (gas only, probably helium) cycle instead of the Rankine (steam) cycle which is more efficient and does not require water cooling.
For more information, read the book Super Fuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future
, by Richard Martin; it is readily available from the usual sources. Also, I suggest visiting the following web site:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1YjDdI_c8
You can also find detractors of LFTR technology. If you have become familiar with LFTR technology, you will be able to see that many of its detractors are not informed; they don't even understand that the LFTR doesn't use solid fuel.