Some Concerns on the Miller Amendment

I think that the Miller Amendment is well intentioned, but I have some concerns. If you don't know what the Miller Amendment is Nick is all over that.

Here is my concern. How is such an amendment to be enforced? If the means of enforcement is either by Senate hearings or by judicial prosecution, can members of the political establishment be trusted to distinguish accurate from inaccurate scientific information in an impartial manner? Also, can this amendment be abused?

Consider the following scenario. Congressman A has a problem with a set of scientific results done by a scientific researcher, say with respect to global warming. He decides to take that individual to court or drag them into hearings because that researcher has failed to acknowledge alternative theories -- for example the research of global warming skeptics. A court or a Senate panel would then be required to screen the validity of the scientist's results -- though such a forum lacks the training to do so and unlikely to be impartial.

I guess I am worried that this is going to blow up in its proponents faces big time and that this amendment is going to be used to bring politicians into the process of determining scientific validity rather than keeping them out of it.

I agree completely with the principle that results should not be censored and that advisory panel members should not be politically motivated. I also think that this response by Blogs for Industry is a crass ad hominem attack. However, I do think concerns about this bill are reasonable, even if Republicans do not seem to be motivated by reasonable concerns in their decision to vote against it.