Reluctant smokers take heart: new pharmaceuticals and anti-nicotine vaccines may make the task of quitting easier.

Although these advances could be a boon to those trying to quit, they also raise questions about who should be allowed — or required — to use them.

Wayne Hall, PhD, professorial research fellow at the University of Queensland, Australia, spoke about the ethical and policy issues of anti-smoking pharmaceuticals on May 5 at a seminar sponsored by at the Bio-X interdisciplinary initiative Ethical Dimensions of Neuroscience Research.

Hall said one vaccine being tested to prevent smoking provides a roughly three-month window in which the body’s immune system binds nicotine and prevents it from reaching the brain. By preventing a nicotine buzz, this vaccine could help people kick the habit.

Questions are now being asked, however, about whom to vaccinate. Should it be restricted to adults trying to quit, or should parents be allowed to vaccinate their children?

"Something we have to face is that some people will advocate universal vaccination," Hall said. He added that the vaccine is far from foolproof. "You can continue to smoke, but you’d just get very little buzz off of it."

In addition, a rebellious teenager may have other reasons for smoking beyond simply the buzz itself, rendering the vaccine useless. What’s more, vaccinated teenagers who ordinarily would not have smoked may be tempted to light up to test their response.

Other efforts in smoking prevention involve genetic tests to identify those who are most susceptible to becoming hooked after their first puff.

Hall said several genes have been identified that make a person more prone to addiction. Doctors could focus their prevention efforts on these people through brochures and pamphlets, warning family members, and offering pharmaceuticals or vaccines.

The problem with this approach, Hall said, is that people may feel stigmatized by genetic factors they can’t control. What’s more, even people without a genetic risk can get hooked and would benefit from the prevention message.

Hall explained the issues of how to prevent people from smoking and to what lengths a doctor or the government can go to look after a person’s well-being will continue to be debated as better pharmaceuticals for smoking prevention reach the market.

"In the long run I think biotechnology will reduce the harm of smoking," Hall said. "But we should be very careful before we embrace these technologies too enthusiastically."