This chapter examines how neuroscience and artificial intelligence research have become primary targets for global anti-science movements, despite their potential to advance medical treatments and human understanding. This chapter argues that these fields face unique vulnerabilities for several reasons. These include their inherent complexity, direct engagement with existential questions about consciousness and human identity, and the “black box” nature of many AI systems that creates communication challenges between researchers and the public. Through analysis of regional resistance patterns, media representation trends, and the intersection of legitimate ethical concerns with more extreme anti-science narratives, this chapter demonstrates how neuroscience and AI encounter what the authors term “existential skepticism.” This is opposition rooted not merely in methodological concerns but in deeper anxieties about scientific discoveries’ implications for human nature itself. The analysis reveals complex opposition patterns crossing traditional political boundaries in Western democracies, with both conservative concerns about human dignity and progressive worries about surveillance and social justice creating vulnerabilities for anti-science exploitation. This chapter documents how media coverage follows a “neural hype cycle” where dramatic reporting creates unrealistic expectations followed by disillusionment, with neuroimaging visualizations exerting disproportionate persuasive power despite representing statistical constructions rather than direct observations. Rather than recommending traditional science communication approaches, this chapter proposes building “science-society resilience” through epistemic humility, trusted intermediaries, anticipatory governance, and enhanced public epistemic competence. The authors conclude that realizing the benefits of neuroscience and AI while maintaining public trust requires not just technical excellence but sustained attention to how knowledge and power intersect in democratic societies, emphasizing the need for genuine engagement with public concerns and values rather than simple defense of scientific authority.