New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Lifting the Fog around Anesthesia

Learning why current anesthetics are so potent and sometimes dangerous will lead to a new generation of safer targeted drugs without unwanted side effects

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A Hollywood thriller due out this year centers on a young man who awakens while undergoing open-heart surgery but is unable to move or cry out. The film's plot will undoubtedly take many more dramatic turns from there, but its early premise is, sadly, not entirely far-fetched. Episodes of intraoperative awareness while under general anesthesia are reported by one or two of every 1,000 patients. In reality, such incidents are usually brief and generally do not involve pain or distress, but they do highlight one of several ways that even the newest generation of anesthetic drugs can sometimes leave much to be desired. Indeed, the medical specialty of anesthesiology has evolved into a sophisticated art form because scientific understanding of how anesthetic drugs actually work, and how to make them better, has lagged behind most other areas of drug development.

Many of the modern anesthetics, in fact, share structural properties and clinical effects with ether, whose application as an anesthetic was first successfully demonstrated in public by Boston dentist William Morton in 1846. Since then, the use of general anesthesia has expanded to 40 million patients each year in North America alone. Yet advances in anesthetic care since Morton's day have come largely from the development of complex drug delivery systems and strategies for managing anesthesia's dangers and side effects.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe