The Benefits of Banning Federal Funding

Ruth Fischbach and John Loike of Columbia University’s Center for Bioethics have noted that the George W. Bush administration’s 2001 federal funding ban on human embryonic stem-cell research led scientists kicking and screaming into developing alternative cell-transformation approaches---approaches that now show tremendous promise for new treatments.
What’s the moral of this story? Even research scientists are human. Instead of looking for alternatives they looked only for one solution because the gov’t discouraged other alternatives by not funding other alternatives—not deliberately but the result was still the same.  But when President Bush banned federal funding (he did not ban all funding, just federal) he made the researchers look for other sources of funding (like investment bankers, wealthy businessmen, etc.) or alternative approaches to the problem. In other words, Bush let the market decide not the government.
The moral above can be applied to other research the gov’t funds. In essence, the gov’t is saying “this research X  is the best research.” Which may or may not be true.  Especially in the long run when we can look at the results later on.
Source of first paragraph: Wrong. Why Experts Keep Failing Us---And How to Know When Not to Trust Them. (2010) by David H. Freedman.