Are we guilty of errors of omission on the potential role of electronic nicotine delivery systems as less harmful substitutes for combusted tobacco use?

Two of the more controversial tobacco control and regulatory strategies in recent years are the nicotine reduction and tobacco harm reduction (THR) strategies. They have become inextricably intertwined as a successful nicotine reduction policy might only be possible in an environment in which alternative, noncombusted forms of nicotine like electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are available to address the needs of those who were unable or unwilling to completely give up nicotine. Unfortunately, ENDS have emerged as particularly controversial, in part, because they are the first product to carry reduced risk potential while being broadly appealing to cigarette smokers across demographic groups and subpopulations, and to a much smaller extent nonsmokers including, and most controversial, adolescents. In an effort to better understand some of the reasons that make this a controversial topic, we review some of the relevant history and discuss a broader dilemma that faces practitioners and policy developers of medical and public health interventions, namely, weighing the potential consequences of errors of commission versus omission. Commission errors involve a salient, direct link between an action and associated adverse or unintended consequences while omission errors are typically less salient with a more indirect link between inaction and associated adverse consequences. Decision-making research demonstrates that humans have a bias towards avoidance of commission errors and insensitivity to omission errors. This bias may be contributing to some of the aforementioned difficulties in finding common ground regarding the potential contribution of ENDS to reducing the harm of combusted tobacco use.