Let’s break this one down. The phrase “scaremongering risk communications” implies that the EPA may be exaggerating environmental risks (e.g. pollution, climate change, toxic chemicals) to justify its regulatory actions. Gunasekara is suggesting that the EPA is using its scientific findings to instill fear in the public, leading to enforcement activities that are based on overstated risks.

“Citizen science” refers to the involvement of non-professional scientists (the general public) in collecting, analyzing, or interpreting scientific data. The suggestion is that the public should be more involved in scrutinizing the EPA’s scientific work, playing a watchdog role in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the agency’s data and research. This is another form of “my opinion is just as good as your expertise”, which is prevalent throughout this project and not only untrue, but a dangerous mindset.

Throughout Project 2025, its authors have argued with staffing the government with loyalists to the agenda rather than actual experts. This adds an extra layer of stupidity – now we’re bringing in citizen non-scientists to “watchdog” a government agency that’s supposed to adhere to scientific principles. I can see Earl Schmo on the news now, testifying that he’s “been using harmful pesticides for years, and nothing bad has happened to him, so they must be safe.” Meanwhile, he’s riddled with cancer he’s not aware of.

I’m all for engaging the public in science. It encourages scientific literacy. But elevating public critique to the level of institutional oversight is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. It will lead to misinterpretation of complex data, because scientific research involves specialized knowledge that laypeople mostly do not have.

It also increases the risk of disinformation, also almost certainly by design. Citizen science efforts that aim to find flaws in scientific research could be exploited by special interest groups who oppose certain regulations (e.g., fossil fuel or chemical companies). This could lead to a flood of misinformation or deliberate attempts to discredit legitimate environmental science, using public skepticism to weaken regulations. If individuals with limited understanding of scientific methods are empowered to challenge science, there is a risk that conspiracy theories or false claims about environmental issues could gain traction, especially when amplified by social media. Perhaps the author is counting on this, because this is directly in the service of deregulation efforts. This one is more nefarious than most, because it’s taking the long road to deregulation by gradually and falsely convincing the public that regulations aren’t necessary.

She goes on to argue that Congress should provide incentives to the public for identifying scientific flaws and research misconduct, which roughly translates to “pay the public to spread disinformation.” This is on page 470, paragraph 4.

Full contextual analysis of Section 3.4: Environmental Protection Agency here.