Nicotine, dependence and scientific deception: how Big Tobacco engineered addiction and reinvented risk| Tabaccologia

Abstract

The history of nicotine and tobacco dependence is one of the most emblematic cases of the complex relationship between science, industry and public health. From the chemical discovery of the alkaloid in the nineteenth century, through the gradual understanding of its neuropharmacological and behavioural effects, to the emergence of nicotine dependence as a phenomenon, scientific knowledge has evolved in parallel with industrial strategies to exploit and manipulate this substance. Historical evidence shows that, from the earliest internal research of tobacco companies, nicotine was recognised as the main addictive agent and the key factor in securing consumer loyalty. Yet for more than half a century the industry systematically concealed this information, denying the existence of dependence and spreading artificial uncertainty through a sophisticated apparatus of scientific disinformation. Analysis of internal documents, now accessible thanks to the Legacy Tobacco DocumentsLibrary, has made it possible to reconstruct beyond doubt the strategy of scientific deception adopted by Big Tobacco: a strategy first based on risk denial, then on the manufacture of doubt and, more recently, on the rhetoric of harm reduction. In each of these phases, science was bent to instrumental use, transformed from a tool of knowledge into a means of commercial legitimisation. Modern market innovations – electronic cigarettes, heated tobacco products and synthetic nicotine – show that the industry continues to apply the same paradigm, updating the language while maintaining its primary goal: preserving dependence and normalising nicotine consumption. The “harm reduction” narrative, though based on elements of partial truth, risks undermining decades of progress in tobacco control and re-creating new forms of dependence among younger generations. From this perspective, the story of nicotine and Big Tobacco’s deception takes on paradigmatic value. It shows that scientific truth, in order to be truly effective in public health, must be accompanied by transparency, independence and ethical responsibility. Only science free from economic interference and grounded in principles of integrity can prevent similar distortions from recurring. Finally, the experience gained in confronting the tobacco industry offers a universal lesson: the protection of collective health depends not only on the accumulation of scientific evidence but also on the ability of institutions and the scientific community to defend truth against manipulation by economic power. In an era marked by new forms of disinformation and dependence, this lesson remains more relevant than ever.