Basically they're trying to limit what the expert witnesses for the prosecution can say. Those people are not scientists, they're defense lobbyists.
The courts have always limited what expert witnesses could say. It's called "Admissibility."
Start with Frye v. United States, which applied to a criminal case, where the Supreme Court ruled that lie detector tests couldn't be admitted as evidence because there was no scientific evidence for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That was superseded by Daubert, a civil case, where the judge decided to throw out evidence of birth defects against a corporation,
Read the article again:
In September, a White House science panel called on courts to question the admissibility of four heavily used techniques, including firearms tracing, saying claims about their reliability had not been scientifically proved. The Justice Department last year also announced a wider review of testimony by experts across several disciplines after finding that nearly all FBI experts for years overstated and gave scientifically misleading testimony about two techniques the FBI Laboratory long championed: the tracing of crime-scene hairs based on microscopic examinations and of bullets based on chemical composition.
The issue here isn't whether the commission gets renewed. The issue here is that this is a prosecutor's wish list to keep giving juries unproven and disproven "scientific" evidence with the authority of "FBI agents."
These prosecutors are the same ones who ( while they smoke cigarettes) insist that marijuana is so dangerous that users should go to jail.
They want to be free to use bullshit evidence because that way they can get convictions, and advance their careers, whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. DNA testing exposed that whole fraud.
At one time there were intelligent, principled conservatives who understood logic and science, and were even committed to justice, not convictions, and sometimes the weight of the evidence would convince them to change their minds. There were also liberals like that.
Today, as Chris Mooney documented in The Republican War on Science, some of the Democrats are ignoring the scientific evidence, but almost all the Republicans have followed the Republican party line.
Think about it. The Trump administration rejects global warming, and hasn't even hired scientific advisers. How can they be competent to understand the scientific validity of criminal evidence?
Sadly, it's a waste of time to argue with you, because you have your position and I don't think any evidence would convince you. I'm writing this for the benefit of the other readers of Slashdot who want a better understanding of the issues.