Weaponizing Uncertainty: How Tech is Recycling Big Tobacco’s Playbook

One of the hardest parts about being human today is navigating uncertainty. When we see experts battling in public and emotions running high, it's easy to doubt what we once felt certain about. This uncertainty isn't always accidental—it's often strategically manufactured.

Historian Naomi Oreskes, author of "Merchants of Doubt," reveals how industries from tobacco to fossil fuels have deployed a calculated playbook to create uncertainty about their products' harms. These campaigns have delayed regulation and protected profits by exploiting how we process information.

In this episode, Oreskes breaks down that playbook page-by-page while offering practical ways to build resistance against them. As AI rapidly transforms our world, learning to distinguish between genuine scientific uncertainty and manufactured doubt has never been more critical.

Your Undivided Attention is produced by the Center for Humane Technology. Follow us on Twitter: @HumaneTech_

RECOMMENDED MEDIA

“Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway 

"The Big Myth” by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway 

"Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson 

"The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair 

Further reading on the clash between Galileo and the Pope 

Further reading on the Montreal Protocol
 

RECOMMENDED YUA EPISODES

Laughing at Power: A Troublemaker’s Guide to Changing Tech 

AI Is Moving Fast. We Need Laws that Will Too. 

Tech's Big Money Campaign is Getting Pushback with Margaret O'Mara and Brody Mullins
 
Former OpenAI Engineer William Saunders on Silence, Safety, and the Right to Warn

CORRECTIONS:

• Naomi incorrectly referenced Global Climate Research Program established under President Bush Sr. The correct name is the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
• Naomi referenced U.S. agencies that have been created with sunset clauses. While several statutes have been created with sunset clauses, no federal agency has been.

CLARIFICATION: Naomi referenced the U.S. automobile industry claiming that they would be “destroyed” by seatbelt regulation. We couldn’t verify this specific language but it is consistent with the anti-regulatory stance of that industry toward seatbelt laws.