Do Research Institutions or Researchers Produce Better Science?

Well, just taking a quick glance at the discoveries/developments comparison between Big Science and Small Science, I'd say that the discoveries/developments of Small Science have yielded greater wealth and utility to society than those of Big Science.

And by the way, I'd have picked Einstein's work with the Photoelectric Effect (for which he won the Nobel Prize) rather than Relativity.

The photoelectric effect has created multiple industries that make use of this discovery - from the photoelectric 'eyes' that control the conveyor belt at your supermarket checkout stand and the 'eye' of the laser scanner that reads the barcode, to full-color, multiband, megapixel digital photography, to tiny cameras imbedded in phones, to CD and DVD technologies, to fiber optic transmission of information.

The DNA discoveries of Watson and Crick have lead to gene splicing, new drugs, disease detection and prevention, new developments in archeology, improved crop yields, and so forth.

And the transistor - well maybe someday that discovery will be worth while too. (HAH!)

Compare to the atomic bomb...? Landing on the Moon...? The benefits from these have been the spin-offs, spurring new developments by smaller labs and industries. The genome project really owes it existence to the 'small science' of Watson and Crick.

"The benefits from these have been the spin-offs, spurring new developments by smaller labs and industries."

I admit to being a fan of the "little guy with big ideas" model. Shoot, I'll even admit to being biased in favor of it. But, the quote from USBPORTs comment, above, coupled with the thread of the source article, talking about entrepreneurs spinning off companies to fill niche markets not interesting to the parent lab, all point to an idea, to wit: Is it possible, apropos of the OPs original question, that both are equally necessary?

If the large lab is able to "turn over rocks" in the stream of the funded research, which will lead to the ability of the little guy (who may have been unable to turn them over himself, due to lack of funds) to exploit (and further research into) a "low-profit" (i.e., not of interest due to lack of cost-benefit incentives) line of research, then is it possible that the little guy's research might, in turn, uncover a larger thread, with a concomitant better cost-benefit ratio (read "profitability or marketability margin", which would then spur the large lab in a new direction, completing the cycle?

In short, are not both of equal importance, NOT relative to size and funding, if the lab in question is willing to allow it's researchers freedom to pursue their own ideas, on their own time, possibly even using some of the lab's equipment and facilities to do so?

I don't have any specific cases in mind, though I'm sure other readers will, but I suspect that many of the "breakthrough discoveries" in history were reached in this way.

In my job I see both sides of this & both big and small labs have something to offer. Smaller labs will work with us, often on grant funded projects, & will either supply facilities or specialised processes or we might employ one of their researchers under a KTP arrangement to work with us directly. We currently have 4 KTP members working for us on different projects

The larger labs have better finances & are willing to place orders with us, often for quite substantial amounts, to develop a piece of equipment even though it is not always certain that it is even possible to make it.