Street Smarts: Beta Blockers
The other major smart drug category is beta blockers, or meds like Inderal and Lopressor, designed to aid failing hearts.
A weak heart tries to compensate for its feeble beats by pumping faster, but that can strain the muscles even further. Beta blockers slow down the heart by obstructing its "beta receptors," or proteins that register adrenaline (the "fight or flight" hormone that increases heart rate). That means beta blockers can also reduce symptoms of anxiety, like tremors or a pounding heart.
Although the FDA has been slow to approve beta blockers as an anti-anxiety treatment, that hasn't stopped many from relying on them to quell their nerves - especially in the classical music world. Often, musicians will rely on them to extinguish stage fright or jitters before important auditions and performances. A 1987 survey by the International Conference of Symphony Orchestra Musicians revealed that 27 percent of its performers had tried beta blockers at least once. More than 20 years later, experts suspect that percentage is now much higher.
Some athletes rely on beta blockers, too, especially shooters and archers, who need precision and steady aim. Using the drugs, marksmen can slow down their pulse, shooting between heartbeats and avoiding a jolt when their weapon fires. (The International Olympic Committee got wise, however, and in 2002 the organization banned the use of beta blockers in its competitions.)
Warning: Side Effects Of Thinking May Occur
Despite their usefulness, smart drugs can also trigger nasty side effects. Ritalin, for example, can cause moodiness, insomnia and psychosis, while Adderall can lead to depression and even anorexia. (Plus, because it contains amphetamines, the drug is highly addictive.) Beta blockers make strenuous physical activity dangerous, and their users can easily become dizzy and nauseated.
Few studies have explored smart drugs' long-term effects on the body, especially in already healthy individuals. Its one thing to demonstrate a drug is harmless and effective over a six-month clinical trial, but another thing entirely to prove its harmlessness and effectiveness under real-world conditions and years of continued use.
"Most of the drugs that are of any interest have not been tested for long enough periods to know whether they are safe in the long term," says Dees. "So people have plenty of reason to be cautious."
That said, any medicine has its risks. "If you're treating a disease, you're making a calculated cost-benefit trade off," says Chatterjee. "To improve your health, some risks in medications are worthwhile." Those who choose to take brain-boosting drugs often do so in spite of the risks, because "they see some professional benefit." he says.
But, he wonders, "If you don't have any disease, is taking any risk worthwhile?"
The Ethics Of Chemical Intelligence
Safety isn't the only issue; smart drugs evoke several ethical concerns, too. First of all, since insurance companies are unlikely to pay for neuroenhancing therapies, smart pills will probably be available only to those who can front the out-of-pocket expense. "Certainly those with resources would have access to it in a way others wouldn't," says Chatterjee.
Therefore, if only the rich can afford smart drugs, could this lay the foundation for a modern, de facto aristocracy, where the upper class isn't just wealthier, but smarter, too?
If that's the concern, says Chatterjee, then we have other problems to tackle first. "We don't live in a culture where fairness is given a lot of priority," he says. He points to a familiar example: college admissions. An upper-class, suburban high schooler has access to better schools, SAT prep courses, even music and sports clubs that look good on college resumes. An inner-city kid, however, is considered a success story simply if he makes it through 12th grade; college is irrelevant.
