1. purepedantry
  2. Some Concerns on the Miller Amendment

Some Concerns on the Miller Amendment

By purepedantry on June 14, 2006.

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.

Tags
Science Policy

More like this

Why Republicans Reject Science
Over at Crooked Timber, John Quiggin has launched a broadside at NYTimes Science Blogger John Tierney (also here) over what he (Quiggin) considers politicization of science: One of the big problems with talking about what Chris Mooney has called The Republican War on Science is that, on the…
LOCKED IN A POLITICAL KNIFE FIGHT? Huffington Post Responds to Framing Science on the Challenge of Communicating Global Warming
Over at the Huffington Post, David Roberts concedes my point about why the Pandora's Box frame of looming catastrophe may not be the best way to communicate the urgency of climate change. Yet he disagrees that environmental advocates should be concerned about opening themselves up to claims of "…
Your Stance on Global Warming Has Come to Define Your Identity as Either a Democrat or a Republican
Despite the ever growing scientific consensus about the nature and urgency of global warming, Americans remain more divided politically on the matter than at anytime in history. The reason is that personal views on global warming have come to define what being a Democrat or Republican means. As GOP…
Interesting Essays on the Senate's Confirmation Role
Todd Zywicki has an interesting post reacting to this article by Alan Dershowitz, in which Dershowitz suggests some changes in the Senate confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees. Dershowitz argues that the Senate judiciary committee lacks the expertise to ask good questions to judicial…

I think anytime you mix science and politics you're probably asking for trouble, but I'm not sure if I really see a scenario playing out that way. As it stands right now, there is quite a bit of political interference in science and no legal avenues to address it. For example, NASA wasn't able to do anything about the person at the heart of the NASA censorship scandal, because he was an administration appointee. It was only because of the unrelated fact that he lied on his resume that he had to resign. Regulations such as the ones in this amendment would have hopefully gotten rid of him when it first became apparent that he was blatantly censoring the science.