I absolutely agree with Michael$$s and Monforton$$s premise that the strategy of $$manufacturing uncertainty$$ is and has been used to avoid regulation or punishment for any harm done by their product or process. More often than not, especially in capitalistic societies, the primary goal of a successful company is to achieve the highest degree of profit possible. When selling a potentially harmful product, science pointing to its hazards proves detrimental to that company's success. Two clear examples of this concept are tobacco companies and the asbestos industry. Michael and Monforton$$s article shows substantial evidence that the tobacco industry manufactured uncertainty, especially when the risks of tobacco were not as prevalent and universally known as they are today. In the $1950$s$,$ the tobacco industry hired scientists with the sole purpose being to dispute the general consensus held by scientists of the dangers of cigarettes. To do this, the tobacco$-$hired scientists attempted to discredit the factual information by stating that the statistics linking lung cancer to smoking were not substantial enough and argued that more research was needed. Similarly, the asbestos industry attempted to hide information or misguide the general public about the risks of their services. Like cigarettes, asbestos has the potential to cause lung cancer, and the industry attempted to limit the exposure of scientific beliefs that linked the two concepts together. The industry was willing to agree that asbestos created hazards only when they were clearly demonstratable. I was not shocked when I read this article. It is a commonly held belief that many corporate leaders are corrupt and hold regard for the general public. The hazards brought by the two exemplified industries show the complete disregard for human life in return for larger profits.