How Cheap Can Solar Get? - <AUTHOR> http://rameznaam.com/2015/08/10/how-cheap-can-solar-get-very-cheap-indeed/ <comment><USER2> Hi. I'm the author of this blog post. Happy to answer questions people have, as time allows, on Wednesday.

Upcoming posts will look at the future of wind power, the future of energy storage, and what the missing pieces are.

If you don't want to wait, you can read my thoughts on energy storage here: [http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/14/energy-storage-about-to- get-...](http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/14/energy-storage-about-to-get-big-and- cheap/)

<comment><USER3> IIRC all the efficient solar cells we currently have contains some rare materials. Once a particular solar technology reaches grid parity, the demand for the relevant rare material will increase, placing a floor under the price of that solar cell.

In the case of Moore's Law, a transistor can be any size. By contrast, solar cells absorbs too little energy if they are too thin.

TL;DR: There are real physical limitations to solar cells.

<comment><USER2> Two things have happened in this area recently.

1\. The grams of rare earths required per watt of solar have been dropping steadily. And Solar PV panels with no rare earths at all have been developed, though they are not yet common.

2\. "Rare earths" are not so rare. Their prices have tumbled substantially as new mines have opened up and substitutes have been found.

<comment><USER4> > 2\. "Rare earths" are not so rare. Their prices have tumbled substantially > as new mines have opened up and substitutes have been found.

Yes, but mining them is an environmental disaster.

<comment><USER5> Can you quantify that? I'm seeing comments in this thread saying, over and over again, that manufacturing these things is an environmental disaster. But without numbers, the statement is meaningless. We are _currently_ poisoning pretty much the entire planet for our energy needs. If we cut that down to, say, poisoning an area the size of Texas for our energy needs, that would be a _massive_ win.

<comment><USER6> Solar is definitely far better than fossil. It's just not entirely clear that it's better than nuclear, especially with the advanced reactors that get a hundred times as much energy from the same fuel, and produce only a small amount of short-lived waste.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If I could install solar today I would, regardless of cost (apartment living prevents it). That may sound crazy, but I theorize that when you consider externalities the cost of grid electricity already far exceeds the cost of solar. It's going to cost humanity a whole lot of money to both survive and fix the damage we're dealing to the environment today. I'd rather pay more now for solar, than pay through the nose later for the environmental equivalent of a triple bypass surgery.

I doubt others see it that way, so I guess I'll pay the cleanup cost later like everyone else regardless. Such is the human condition.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash I used to think this way until I started dating a geologist. She brought down my optimism when she detailed the ways that the environment is ravaged to extract the materials necessary to create solar panels, wind turbines, and so on. Rare earths are great for handling high heat, but their resistance to reaction also means it takes a LOT of nasty chemicals to purify the ore. Not that we should keep on burning fossil fuels, but we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that renewables are a one-way street to environmental prosperity.

<comment><USER8> Not all PV panels, wind turbines or EV car designs use rare earths e.g. Tesla doesn't use any in their motors.

Also, lots of other things that aren't good for the environment use rare earths. Kind of weird and illogical that people only care about it when you're trying to do good.

<comment><USER9> Are you sure about Tesla? What material do they use for the permanent magnets in their motors? I know the motor has to contain permanent magnets since Tesla cards have regenerative braking.

<comment><USER10> [http://my.teslamotors.com/roadster/technology/motor](http://my.teslamotors.com/roadster/technology/motor)

No magnets, induction motors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> i live off grid inside of a 500w/h peak footprint. i paid around $1000 for proper German (Schutten) panels, a charge controller suitable for them, 2 110ah "solar batteries" (lead acid usual cheapo old school stuff), and a Xantrex inverter. After nearly 1 year running a fridge, lights, computer, router, & studio monitors, I'm ready to add more battery capacity before the winter (cloudy days) and a small wind turbine.

grid-tie systems are another story and a bigger investment. (need a proper electrician to wire it etc...)

feeding ignorant "city ways" in terms of people's silly habits fed by years of cluelessness (no a hairdryer will never ever be possible, as that's 2kw right there...) that's where the biggest expenses come in... if you don't try to keep up with the usual clueless electrical consumption, a well organized person can begin cutting their footprint down...

for example my alleged 85w macbook pro power supply consumes less than 20w typically... my inverter says so...

<comment><USER12> Do you always use your MBP connected to a power outlet? If so, try running it until its battery is drained about 50%, then plug it into your inverter and see how much power it draws. My guess is it will draw about 50-60 W.

I've been using a pedal-powered generator to power my computer, phone, tablet, and LED lights for the last 5 years and have tested several laptops and other devices using it. I've found that most laptops draw from 12 W (11" Chromebook) to 25 W (older 15" Dell) when their battery is charged, but 40-60 W when charging. The power supplies of most devices seem to have about a 50% safety factor, so a device that has a normal max power consumption of 50 W will use a 75 W power supply.

<comment><USER13> How much electricity can you generate? Just thinking off the top of my head, I'm a sucky cyclist so can only manage about 150W power output sustained, probably. I'm not sure I could handle more than an hour of stationary biking before I collapse in a puddle of sweat ;-) So that's about 150 WH...

Is that about right (ballpark), or have I missed something? It would probably power my laptop for the day, anyway... It's something to think about (since I love cycling, even stationary ;-) )

<comment><USER12> Most people seem to be able to comfortably produce 30 W over a sustained period of time.

If you're used to bicycling, dress appropriately, and work in a cool environment with a fan, you can produce 50-60 W.

Above that, it becomes difficult to maintain your concentration on your work while trying to pedal hard at the same time.

On most days, I maintain about 35-50 W, depending on the load.

So far this morning, I've ridden for 2 hrs, 5 minutes and produced 74 W-hr. The computer I'm using this morning is a Raspberry Pi2 with a 19" monitor. I'm also powering our DSL modem/router and a 12 V fan while recharging two tablets, four AA batteries, and my phone at the same time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does anyone know methods for hackers to help and learn more about solar ?

It it possible for the mathematically trained to easily immerse and innovate in the industry ?

It it possible to manufacture solar cells "in your garage" so to speak ?

<comment><USER15> My MSc is concerned with a model for simulating molecular photovoltaics. The work I do is a blend of physics, chemistry, maths and programming, in different proportions. I wouldn't say it was "easy to immerse", but complement your skills with physics/chemistry and you could be useful, yes.

A Grätzel or dye sensitized solar cell can be easily created in your garage. Look them up on Youtube.

<comment><USER16> Better models for molecular photovoltaics are sorely needed. Math skills are not unwanted.

Source: I work in the field.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Does this make solar a great industry to invest in because of the growth potential, or a terrible industry to invest in because the prices are racing to the bottom?

<comment><USER2> Hi. I'm the author of the original post. The amount of solar installed in the world is going to scale by more than 10x in the coming decades. There will be more than a trillion spent.

If you pick the winners, investment will have huge return.

Most solar companies, however, will be casualties in the fierce competition to come.

The other area to look at is energy storage. More renewables will increase the demand for energy storage. And it's early days in that field. Again: Huge returns for the winners. But most companies will be shaken out of the field.

<comment><USER18> Do you have any suggestions about good solar startups with good patents/tech/people?

<comment><USER19> The race to the bottom is more applicable to the panel manufacturers. The lowest cost producers are mostly Chinese companies, and the financial performance for these companies (ReneSola, Yingli Green Energy, Trina Solar, etc.) has been pretty terrible so far. Probably the best way to invest in solar through the stock market is to invest in a developer of solar projects. The best of these in my opinion in terms of scale and expertise is SunEdison (ticker: SUNE), and incidentally, the stock has been in free fall for various reasons over the past couple weeks, so this is probably a reasonable entry point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I have a 1kW solar panel battery storage system which I use to power my computers and servers. I installed it a couple of years ago to help mitigate the $0.37 kWh top tier rate that SDG&E charges.

In California, a minimum charge was introduced and will be $10.00 starting in 2016. I suspect that this charge will be jacked up in increments till it is a significant fraction of the monthly bill.

If this does indeed play out, then the only option will be solar with localized energy storage, and disconnect completely from the grid.

California also will be flattening the rate curve at the Utility companies request to combat solar installations in the next 1-2 years. Users in the first tier will be paying more, the other tiers will be combined into one and be at a lower rate than the current top tier. In 2019 there is a plan to move everyone to time of use pricing. Once time of use is mandated, it may be too expensive to remain connected to the grid.

<comment><USER21> What you're saying does not make sense from the utilities point of view. Why, if they have superior competition, would they make themselves more uncompetitive?

Besides, centralized energy systems have certain advantages that household operations do not have. Maybe even better ones will arrive once solar becomes more accessible. SO it makes sense that they will stay at least as competitive as off-grid systems.

<comment><USER22> Can't keep customers? Then charge the ones you do have even more to make up for that shortfall.

Businesses trying to keep their outdated business models alive do that sort of thing all the time. Just look at the music and movie industry's continued flailing as they try to keep CDs/DVDs profitable while their customer base wants files that they can play on _any_ device they own, not a physical copy or some DRM-laden crap that forces them to use it on one system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm not happy with the diagrams. Example: the first one compares time to costs. That's really what we want. But why not add some lines for traditional ways to make electricity? That's what we want to compare to, or don't we?

</comment><comment><USER24> What is the environmental impact of making solar cells?

<comment><USER15> Sorry for the non-answer:

The term "solar cell" refers to a wide variety of technologies[1]. Anything from common semiconductors, rare-earths or even fruit juice can be used to make solar cells. The impact will be highly dependent on the type of cell in question.

[1]:[http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/images/efficiency_chart.jpg](http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/images/efficiency_chart.jpg)

The above graph isn't all-encompassing.

<comment><USER24> Fair enough. I think the most satisfying answer would be the released chemicals and other environmental effects normalized to kWh for various cell types, taking the designed lifetime and recycling into account maybe with some emphasis on cell types that are currently sold for households, or planned to be sold in the not too far future.

I'm interested in these questions:

\- What cell types are currently bought, will be bought in large quantities?

\- How it affects / will affect the environment?

<comment><USER10> The first of these links gives an overview of the risks, pointing out that it depends very much on the particular factory's safety record. I don't think normalising is even possible across so many different possibilities. All the risky chemicals _can_ be recycled and non-CO2 emissions neutralised, but this is not always done. It also says the majority type sold is polycrystalline, so CdTe are rare. (Both cadmium and tellurium are quite nasty, but also bound in by the manufacturing process and not prone to leaking)

[http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy- isnt-...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always- as-green-as-you-think)

The second addresses the carbon cost specifically.

[http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/what-energy-and- carbon-p...](http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/what-energy-and-carbon- payback-time-pv-panels-uk)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> If solar is really that viable of an option, India should be investing a lot in this research. Power is a huge problem there. 24 hours of power supply is a luxury even in top cities. Small industries in rural parts operate around availability of power. There are a lot of wins here. And guess what, there is a lot of sunlight in major parts of the country throughout the year.

<comment><USER8> There's a lot going on (note that wind is currently cheaper)

[http://cleantechnica.com/tag/india/](http://cleantechnica.com/tag/india/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I installed solar a few years ago. I didn't do it for economic reasons, rather because I wanted to.

There is now push back by the dominant power company in my area against solar. When I got solar they gave me a small grant.

Solar is the future I think. Too much potential danger from nuclear and coal polutes too much.

</comment><comment><USER27> We all know that PV panels have a limited lifetime, and that building them has environmental cost. But I was wondering about recycling: does anybody know how much energy can be saved by creating new panels using materials from old ones?

<comment><USER28> Not really answering your question, but as far as I know panel lifetime is largely determined by cumulative damage from the environment. Scratches from trees, etc. reduce effectiveness, as does rain leaking into the panel through gaps created by the daily thermal cycle. There may be a lot of scope for extending their lifetime by improving packing, which would defer the environmental impact of recycling. There is some info on these factors in [1].

Also, panels may be declared end-of-life because they are not as effective as newer ones, even though they are still generating to original specification.

[1] [http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar- panels/](http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Power-company solar may matter more than rooftops, in the end. They have the economies of scale, choice of location and orientation, grid connection expertise.

</comment><comment><USER30> Off topic but Ramez's novels are excellent, have a look at Nexus!</comment>


EU Commissioner Will Simply Ignore Any Rejection Of ACTA By EU Parliament - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120625/12333619468/eu-commissioner-reveals-he-will-simply-ignore-any-rejection-acta-european-parliament-next-week.shtml <comment><USER2> The commission needs to be neutered before the EU can be considered truly democratic. The fact that this guy can come straight out and say he's going to ignore court rulings and the democratic will of the elected MEPs with no fear of reprisals, because he's not elected, yet he can hold so much power ... it's sick.

<comment><USER3> Sadly the parliament is essentially a powerless organ by design. The problem is that the european commission accumulates both executive power and most of the legislative power, where the later should lie with parliament.

The end result is that the parliament is basically a farcical attempt to give the appearance of democratic legitimacy to the EU legislative process, but the farce is transparent enough that it just ends up tainting the public perception of the EU institutions.

There are political reasons for this arrangement of course, but I don't want to turn this into (more of) a rant. [EDIT: I end up going into that in this other post: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4161285>]

<comment><USER4> The EP can impeach the Commission - unfortunately only the whole Commission rather than an individual Commissioner.

<comment><USER5> Sounds like it's time for them to do just that - if this sort of open contempt for the democratic process and the rule of law doesn't qualify as adequate grounds, nothing does.

What's the best channel by which to call for that action?

<comment><USER6> This is just sophistry now. The commissioner is playing the role he's supposed to play in the EU institutions, and I have seen no indication that he's done anything illegal or held the parliament in contempt.

<comment><USER7> > I have seen no indication that he's done anything illegal or held the > parliament in contempt

He's said he will ignore the decisons arrived at by the democratically elected representatives of the people. That seems a pretty clear indication to me.

<comment><USER8> What the parent commenter is saying is that he is technically acting within the legal bounds of his office. That is, impeachment will be impossible unless an actual violation of law is found.

<comment><USER7> > That is, impeachment will be impossible unless an actual violation of law is > found.

The European parliament can't impreach the commission. What it can do is sack them (but all of them, not just one). No evidence of illegality is needed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Someone this determined to do something so wrong cannot be assumed to be neutral. This guy must be corrupt and on someone's pay-list.

It would be in the EU's interest to start an investigation of Karel De Gucht to determine if this person is bribed and if these proceedings is a result of corruption. The EU would be wise to do so for its own business sake and before it's perception as a democratic body is tarnished in favour of a US-led corrupt legislative-body.

If the EU loses its perception as democratic, chances are that the rich and populous democracies which funds it will be forced to stop doing so. If it's one thing the EU cannot afford right now, that is one of them.

<comment><USER10> He doesn't have to be corrupt; he simply has to believe that ACTA is good for Europe. If he's trying to circumvent various obstacles in his way, it's because he thinks they're wrong.

<comment><USER11> European commissioners have two undesirable attributes: * Far too much power * Low public visibility

If they perceive their job as "governing this part of the world without paying much attention to what lesser people are saying", then that is partly because we have defined their job in that way. (And, of course, that will attract the wrong kind of people).

Reform is needed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Since I know techdirt always reports aggressively in favour of internet freedom I read the direct quotes first and the techdirt commentary afterwards. From just the quotes, Karel De Gucht doesn't seem to be saying anything underhanded, just that if parliament doesn't ratify ACTA it will be modified (presumably toned down?) and resubmitted.

I don't think techdirt's message "The european government is a corrupt puppet!" is supported by the evidence in this article. Personally the fact that every committe which has reviewed ACTA has advised against it gives me hope.

<comment><USER13> _just that if parliament doesn't ratify ACTA it will be modified (presumably toned down?) and resubmitted_

ACTA can't be _modified_ anymore, it is signed (yet not ratified in the EU)!

Edit: style

<comment><USER12> Ah okay, so when he says "I would consider proposing some clarifications to ACTA" he's just blowing smoke - talking about making cosmetic statements about ACTA which would encourage parliament to ratify it, but wouldn't actually fix the abuse cases that come from the vague wording?

<comment><USER14> Whenever I hear a politician talk about "clarifications" alarm bells ring in my head. It basically means changing marketing not the facts.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, we remember how the constitution, which has been rejected by referendums, became the "simplified treaty": exactly the same text but with articles moved, rephrased, obfuscated. The polite way to describe the EU is as a very-indirect democracy.

<comment><USER16> And when being voted out of office is the only way that the citizenry has to hold officials accountable... would "very-indirect" be good for the people?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> We clearly need to rebuild European Institutions from the ground up.

I'm fully in favor of the European Union as a federal state but to achieve this it is mandatory for the European institutions to stop relying on country representatives or people who were just nominated and rely instead on elected people (and their representatives i.e. a prime minister for the European parliament for example), like in any proper democracy.

It is also a clear sign that despite all the efforts put out in the last few years, associations and companies that are willing to protect Internet freedom are not spending enough money and energy on actually doing it. Not nearly as much as the dying copyrighted and closed content industry anyway.

<comment><USER18> The problem here is, that while it would increase the democracy of EU, it would also decrease perceived sovereignty of individual countries.

A lot of progress in EU seems to be hampered by OMG NATIONAL IDENTITY, actually, and democratization is just one of those.

<comment><USER19> I don't understand, why having Commision that isn't elected makes EU members more suvereign? What would change for worse, if Commision was elected like Parliament?

<comment><USER3> The commission basically represents the governments of the individual member countries. Because it has the most power by far of all the european institutions, this means that the governments in turn can exercise power at the EU level in a fairly unimpeded fashion.

If the legislative power were transferred away from the commission to the parliament (where it _should_ be, if EU governance were to follow the standard approach for separation of powers), the individual member states would lose a lot of control. Control they aren't _at all_ interested in relinquishing, as you may imagine.

And that's before even considering making the executive branch (the commission) directly elected.

<comment><USER20> In principle yes, but in practice that's not always the case. Once chosen, a member state can't remove a commissioner, even if they're willing to. Simply there's no way. Now they have to wait until 2014. Imagine that some political party has (actually) appointed a commissioner because they won the national elections, not much democratic but it's something. Next election they lose, and the new government can't change the commissioner, where's democracy now? If only the commissioners would be elected at the European Elections, the whole Commission idea would make some sense.

<comment><USER21> > Next election they lose, and the new government can't change the > commissioner, where's democracy now?

This is standard practice in all civil service jobs, as well as the judicial branch.

You can't just remove a judge, or a bureaucrat because his party is out of office. Doing so, ensures that there is continuity and stability between governments.

<comment><USER20> You're absolutely right and things should work that way. But these are in fact political appointments yet their point is to give the member states a sense of entitlement. Once the voters have lost their confidence in the political party to which the commissioners belong, there's no reason for them to be there, as they really haven't been elected by the people. Moreover, they are unlikely to play second fiddle any longer, the temptation to stick to their own narrow agendas is just too strong. Keep in mind that these people are professional politicians, not technicians.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> We discussed this a little on Reddit[1] a while back, some of us fired off emails to our local MEPs on the topic, there was a small demonstration, but frankly we didn't make a loud enough noise to be heard.

[1] [http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/osobb/after_w...](http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/osobb/after_writing_to_my_meps_about_acta_got_a_letter/http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/osobb/after_writing_to_my_meps_about_acta_got_a_letter/)

</comment><comment><USER13> and (european) politicians wonder about people's disillusionment with politics and lack of identification with the european union.

</comment><comment><USER23> Come back Nigel Farage <http://www.nigelfaragemep.co.uk/> All is forgiven!

Watch some of his videos laying into the commissioner(s) at the EU parliament. Quite amusing but it seems to be just what they need and deserve.

<comment><USER24> Do you realise that UKIP were about the only party that voted against the EU parliament's call to have the details of the ACTA negotiations made public?

<comment><USER25> I'm not European but my understanding was that they literally vote no against everything as some sort of protest?

Their statement if this is the correct vote you are referring to:

"Whilst we as a group voted against the ACTA Resolution on Wednesday 10th March 2010, we did so on the principle that the ACTA Treaty itself should not exist in any form. It is a catastrophic violation of individual private property. Had we voted to support the Resolution, we would be recognising the existence of such legislation and on that basis we decided not to recognise the Treaty."

<http://www.ukipmeps.org/mypage_11_ExpVote.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> That guy was a shame when he was a minister of foreign affairs back in Belgium, creating multiple diplomatic incidents and controversies (with the Netherlands - calling the prime minister a mix of harry potter and a rigid bourgeois, the Congo, the jewish community, etc), it's no wonders he's a shame in the EU...

</comment><comment><USER27> The problem here is that the voters in the Netherlands and in France have rejected the EU Constitutial Treaty in 2004 that would have given the EU Parliament much more power. The "replacement" Treaty of Lisboa did not go that far.

But anyway, this is just negotiation what the dude is doing (although not very smart negotiation, imho). The ACTA is dead, it was rejected by a number of country governments, and the EU parliament will probably reject it too.

Btw, the commission is elected, but not directly. It is elected by the governments of the member countries, each representing the people of each country. However, it would be nice to be able to vote for those guys directly. But, because of language problems (english anybody? France? Germany?) that is not (yet) practical.

</comment><comment><USER28> Good news. Strengthens the case significantly for the EU to be abandoned.

<comment><USER17> And where would that leave us ?

Massive recession in Germany, Bankrupcy for the southern nations, a few hurt nations (France, Italy, others) closing their borders to try to survive on their own, and the UK surviving as a dependency of the US. With fascist parties triumphing everywhere around (they are already doing 20%+ in a lot of countries, there are even nazis in the Greek parliament now).

And, of course, global economy hurting like never before, since a majority of it still happens in good ol Europe.

Yup. Let's kill the EU.

<comment><USER19> Which are these fascist parties in Europe? Seriously, I live in Europe and never seen any. In most EU countries propagating nazi ideology is criminal offense.

<comment><USER29> Anything described as ultra-rightwing are fascist in sheep's clothing.

I know of openly fascist Golden Dawn party from Greece. And I think there are Tricolour Flame, New Force and National Social Front in Italy.

There are also plenty of horrible evil parties with a similar agenda (but not identifying as right-wing or fascist) growing like mushrooms all over rest of the Europian continent.

<comment><USER30> To be specific "fascist" stuff is outlawed in italy, though this is barely enforced. This basically means you have fascist symbology and slogans on posters, fliers and speech, but you don't write "fascista" in the party name.

There are a few of them, but far right parties have very little consensus (e.g. maybe 2-3% total), protest voting seem to go in different directions.

By comparison, the hungarian far right is the third party in the parliament, and got a whopping 16%+ in the last elections.

<comment><USER19> In Poland it's illegal to propagate totalitarian ideology, applies to both nazism and communism (fascism too, probably, nobody tested this).

Before EURO 2012 championships everybody interpreted it like nazism and communism symbols are forbidden, but Russian supporters wanted to marsh before their match with communism symbols, and some Polish minister said symbols are OK, only propagating is illegal (probably to appease Russian politicians). And nobody was persecuted for walking with red star/other communism symbols during that march, AFAIK. So now it's open question what's actually allowed.

Funny thing, that some asshole Polish nationalists/hools beaten up a few Russian supporters during that march and their excuse was that Russians had illegal totalitarian symbols, and they were just defending law (police and judges don't support their excuse, I imagine :) ).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is why the EU is not in fact a democracy, but a benign totalitarian fascist state. Member states, do not, in fact, control the governing policies being enforced on them by their masters.

<comment><USER32> And where do you think the people in the commission come from? National governments; what happens there is simply that stuff that couldn't be made to pass nationally gets readministered via the EU.

Besides, the EU is not a 'state'.

<comment><USER31> Who voted for the EU President? (Nobody: He was installed by Heads of Industry from the member states..)

>Besides, the EU is not a 'state'.

Yup, and therein lies the problem.

<comment><USER33> Who voted for the German president? Nobody.

<comment><USER31> Does Germany's President veto stuff he doesn't like? (Nope. He can't.)

<comment><USER33> Indirectly he can. If he choses not to sign new laws.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_Europ...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_European_Union)

</comment><comment><USER35> Brussels is starting to look like Moscow. Check out this old Russian Guy that lived through the rise of the Sovjets talk about the striking similarities: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m41Tdl5mvdg)

</comment><comment><USER19> I wonder if we could make some big demonstration in Poland just before the EURO 2012 semi-final matches. Or smuggle big banners to the stadium.

But they are just going to ignore it, right. No accounatability whatsoever.

</comment><comment><USER36> Truly the best democracy that money can buy...

When voting doesn't work, perhaps we should try a kickstarter? Groupon?

</comment><comment><USER37> If the GFC doesn't destroy the EU, then ACTA will. How unfortunate.

</comment><comment><USER38> Description of EU:

Parliament: Good Commission: Bad

</comment><comment><USER39> There have been protests or at least a discussion about it in Europe; Western Europe as well as Eastern Europe. The US has already signed it without much problem. Surely the majority of Americans would not have wanted their President to sign it, but now that it has been signed it would take a lot more effort to kill it.

<http://digitaljournal.com/article/318690> Op-Ed: Obama signed ACTA in violation of Constitution, say critics

</comment><comment><USER40> With my wonk hat on sounds like an MEP needs to put up a motion of "no confidence" in this particular Commissioner.

the MEP's aprove comissioners and therefore must have the ability to censue or remove them.

as "The Parliament may also block certain Commission decisions where there has been a delegation of powers to the Commission and may repeal such delegation of powers."

If a Commissioner directly states that they will ignore the will of parliment they deserve every thing they get

</comment><comment><USER41> Well, the EU is already experienced with lobby work. It shouldn't be a big surprise for the most.

</comment><comment><USER42> Fuck the man!!

That's slang for "This guy is off his god damn rocker." People like this who have such blatant disregard for proper procedure should be castigated into humiliation.</comment>


Cheating and the Honor System - <AUTHOR> http://www.ginandtacos.com/2011/04/14/honor-system/ <comment><USER3> Allow me to give the other side of such a story.

When I was 16, I took English 101 at a local college (joint enrollment, wanted to get it out of the way for my college undergraduate degree).

While there, I was, to my surprise, the top of my class. My grade average was 102 (the professor gave a maximum of 105 on each paper) and I'd had two papers read in class as exemplary.

Unfortunately, my professor was also staunchly politically-polarized, and would frequently spark political debates in class and use absurd examples for things that did not need to be politicized ("when citing a credible source, such as CBS, use this format. Non-credible sources, such as Fox News, or White House press releases [George W Bush was sitting president at the time] will not be accepted."). In one such discussion, the professor took a very difficult-to-support stance (I do not recall the substance now; this was in 2006) with which I and most of the class disagreed. However, as often happens in classroom settings, I wound up as unofficial "spokesman" for the general class consensus. The next assignment was the final paper, worth ~25% of my grade. I was given an F due to plagarism. When asked for proof, the professor highlighted a few sentence fragments here and there as "copied directly" (without stating the source from which these fragments were allegedly copied) and full paragraphs as "too far above [my] ability to be [my] original work." Her reasoning was that, on the whole, my paper "sounded more like a seasoned journalist than a mere college pre-freshman," so it was obviously plagarized despite any substantial lack of proof.

Because there was no system of appeals, the F stood, and my overall grade for the class dropped to a B. Simply because the professor disliked my political stance.

<comment><USER4> I agree completely, cheating is different than unexpected results. Additionally there is little recourse if an instructor has it in for you.

When I was 14, I had an "International trade" simulation in which each student was a "country" trying to make hamburgers. Each country was given a large amount of 2-3 ingredients, but 6 were necessary to make a burger (lettuce, cheese, patty, bread, tomato, mayo). So we had to trade and we'd be graded on how many burgers we could complete. The teacher was left wing and was trying to teach a "fixed wealth" version of trade. Some countries were specifically given less resources. Sparking cries of "unfair!". I was given less than average, and wasn't content to lose. So I immediately traded everything I had 2:1 to buy up all the patties; cornering the closed market trivially. Once I could roadblock a majority of the market, I asked for a 1:10 rate in return. I got by far the most complete hamburgers, but received an F for the exercise.

The teacher had hoped that we'd learn that wealth is pre-determined and trade more favorably with countries that had less. I wasn't participating in the "spirit" of the exercise. Thankfully she stopped short of calling it cheating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> My school (Stanford) the teachers _were_ required to leave the classroom during tests and we _were_ supposed to use the honor system. I never cheated and I don't know anyone who did. Maybe his sarcastic comment at the end has more truth in it than he meant. People tend to live up to expectations.

If you prevent cheating by having a person who's job it is to catch you then you feel like if you don't get caught you have won. On the other hand if you are expected not to cheat because it is not what a honorable person does, then if you cheat it is because you have failed.

<comment><USER6> I was a TA at your school (Stanford). I like that policy, but I also witnessed cheating firsthand. Specifically, I graded a take-home midterm exam where 3 students handed in the same bizarrely wrong answer. The students received penalties on that test, but no other disciplinary action was taken. This was in the mechanical engineering department in a graduate level mechatronics course (that I suspect you've taken).

If I were making the rules, those students would be out of the university the same day. There is no shortage of smart people who would love to attend Stanford, especially the engineering school. I have no idea why enforcement is so disgracefully lax.

In the electrical engineering department, I regularly had classmates ask me if we could "compare answers" on homework problem sets. Sometimes (rarely), this was for a genuine goal of education-- if your answer is wrong, you want to know that so you can figure out the right answer. More often, it was clueless people trying to collect answers from multiple other people. Drove me up the wall.

<comment><USER7> In my experience (another school, another country), it was usually allowed to take a take-home exam together with others. The understanding was that the exams are sufficiently hard, that students smart enough to pass do not allow others to freeload and that working together with other smart students teaches important skills in addition to a better understanding of the subject.

The same goes for homework problem sets: me and two others would usually first solve them ourselves to the best of our ability and then compare answers, which was always an educational experience; the more so when no one had successfully solved the problem on their own or when it took someone a while to convince the other two their (identical) solutions were wrong.

<comment><USER8> > The understanding was that the exams are sufficiently hard, that students > smart enough to pass do not allow others to freeload...

That sounds like a flawed assumption to me. There are lots of social and economic incentives that might lead someone smart to do others' work.

I tend to agree that working with others on problem sets can be quite beneficial. Many classes I took had the same policy on those. But at some point you have to prove you can do it yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I can't say that I find this particular blog post that interesting. "Teacher applies firm standards, which a spineless administration then undermines" is a well-worn subject if you have spent time reading about education, and this particular post is not a strong introduction if you haven't.

The site design, on the other hand, will probably stick with me for a while: a background theme of a Soviet-style propaganda poster where the beaming People's Workers triumphantly brandish gin and tacos.

It's distracting and the text is hard to read, but I will probably never forget this site's URL. Sometimes there's value in picking something out of left field and just running with it.

<comment><USER10> > I can't say that I find this particular blog post that interesting. "Teacher > applies firm standards, which a spineless administration then undermines" is > a well-worn subject if you have spent time reading about education, and this > particular post is not a strong introduction if you haven't.

I find this subject very interesting. Could you point me to some, in your opinion, strong introductions?

<comment><USER9> I'll have to go back through my reading list to see what I recommend - I've been following education issues to some extent for a long time, long enough that I remember reading better articles but not where I found them.

It's a bit much for me to write up on my coffee break, but I'll try and get back to this. Please shoot me an email (in my profile) if I forget to write it up.

<comment><USER9> There's basically three categories where this problem shows up: grade inflation, cheating, and discipline. Grade inflation is most relevant to colleges, discipline only matters for levels of schooling with mandatory attendance, and cheating cuts across all levels.

However, the same issue is in common: In theory, there are standards applied to students, and it is an important priority to distinguish between students who meet the standards and students who don't. In practice, the administration does not necessarily care about applying the standards rigorously.

I think the following two articles are a good introduction to grade inflation as a topic:

"Can Untenured Faculty Members Stop Grade Inflation?" - Chronicle of Higher Education, [http://chronicle.com/article/Can-Untenured-Faculty- Members/4...](http://chronicle.com/article/Can-Untenured-Faculty- Members/45518/)

"In the Basement of the Ivory Tower" - The Atlantic Monthly, [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/06/in- the-b...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/06/in-the-basement- of-the-ivory-tower/6810/)

It can also be useful to read up on business schools, because a business major is not an "academic" subject; more than any other major, the students are looking explicitly for a credential that boosts their income, and don't care about the subject material. The book "Ahead of the Curve" ([http://www.amazon.com/Ahead-Curve-Harvard-Business- School/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Ahead-Curve-Harvard-Business- School/dp/B001RNOPLY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302987751&sr=1-1)) is a well-written appraisal of the Harvard B-School and includes chapters specifically on both grade inflation and cheating.

Going through these publications and/or following the notes and recommended reading therein can lead to more involved reading on the topic. Articles in the Atlantic Monthly are always a good starting point.

The fundamental issue: If an institution of learning punishes students for cheating, or failing classes, or behaving badly, then somebody, somewhere must have both the authority to do so and the goal of exercising said authority. But often, nobody wants to be that person, or the authority is conflicted, or the goal is given less priority than the goal of making money/quota.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Most universities in America are currently structured so that the students who want to learn can learn, and the students who don't want to learn can coast along between parties for four years.

Giving low grades, failing students, assigning a lot of mandatory homework, making the minimum that's required remotely challenging, giving students more than a slap on the wrist for any infraction -- all of that drives away the coasting students, and that's bad for enrollment.

If this professor continues to fuss over this, all he's going to do is botch his chance at tenure.

</comment><comment><USER12> A bit of an aside, but my wife spent the last 6 years teaching high school english and I was surprised to find that there's a number of interesting advancements in the anti-cheating industry. There are a number of anti- plagiarism services that she (and loads of other English teachers apparently) would submit students papers to. The papers are compared to other ones in the database and reports are popped out for ones that match. I appreciated the irony, since it's easy to argue that the internet has made it easier to cheat in the first place.

<comment><USER13> Yes, these were in use back when I was in high school (I graduated in 2005); I remember I wrote a paper in a history class about Winston Churchill, and it amusingly flagged the first sentence of it because it was just the basic biographical intro that's undoubtedly common to nearly any paper about him: "Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was born XXX..." Thankfully it only marks parts of the paper, and the teacher was smart enough to realize it wasn't a real problem.

Sadly though, these provide no defense against the multitude of shady for- profit services that write papers for hire that anyone can find by Googling "term paper".

<comment><USER12> But, the paper would have to be original.. Can you really get an original paper written at a price that's at least conceivable for a high school student to pay? Nuts.

...and yeah, the results of the plagiarism service were a bit soft, but I think it would notice and annotate if things were in quotations, or likely to be common enough to not be an issue. In fact, I think her department had a general 'score' that they'd considered serious enough to consider cheating, and a sentence or two lifted from the interwebs would get you a marked down grade.

<comment><USER14> It's vary easy to accidentally lift a sentence or idea if you do enough research and write something of length. Dropping a full grade for a short essay is reasonable but if you handing in 60+ pages it's rather harsh IMO.

<comment><USER12> Oh yeah, sorry I should have been more specific.. for one, the papers are much shorter than that (this is high school).. also, when I said their grade was marked down, I just meant that they were penalized.. I don't know by how much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Cheating leads to a F, what the heck is that about?

At my university, in Sweden, cheating means suspension (that includes plagiarism) for up to 10 weeks. Just last week 5 different cases got 8 weeks each..

<comment><USER16> Wouldn't suspension lead to failing as well? (assuming you're not allowed to withdraw from your courses)

I believe where I did my bachelor's, the standard punishment for willful cheating was failing the course, one semester's suspension, and a permanent note in your academic record.

<comment><USER17> Not necessarily. At my college, attendace is not required for passing. As long as you do well in all your exams and pass all practical your assignements (two or three each quarter), you are ok. So suspension would bw tough but not and automatic fail. That said, at my college cheating means you are probably expelled, and I'm not aware of suspension as a punishment for anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I came to this conclusion very late in the game. After working my ass off for 4+ years I realized the university honor code is basically toothless. Ohh, it will tell you a great story about all the things the university could do to you. But in the end it's not enforced or enforced so lightly that they shouldn't have bothered at all.

It used to be that cheating was just about the worst thing you could do in college and the university went through great pains to remind you of that. Robbery, murder?! that's a local police matter. Cheat, and we'll keelhaul you on the quad.

<comment><USER19> Keep in mind that when cheaters are discovered, we're required to maintain confidentiality. I've been tangentially involved in one situation where the professor went full out to give the student a failing grade and get her transcripts marked. I've also seen someone in my cohort get kicked out of the graduate school for doing it on the qualifying exam.

On the other hand, I've also been involved in two situations where the individuals received a slap on the wrist. So your results may vary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> FWIW, Google spelunking reveals this university to be the University of Georgia, whose policies I would have expected to be better than that. However, public state schools do have to deal with a lot of pressure from the state to not expel taxpayers and stuff like that, which is unfortunate and wrong.

</comment><comment><USER21> At Caltech, we had an honor system. Proctoring of exams was not allowed. Most exams were take home, even though they had strict time limits (normally 3 hours). Once you opened the test, you had 3 hours to finish it, but since you were in your dorm room it was entirely and deliberately left up to your integrity.

Tests were typically open book and open note.

Some other characteristics:

1\. Professors were not allowed to take attendance or base any part of the grade on attendance.

2\. Homework was graded, but that grade had no influence on the course grade. Students were encouraged to use any resource, collaberation, etc., to understand and do the homework correctly.

3\. Grades were based on exam scores. Policy was that if you could pass the exams, you got credit for the course even if you never showed up for class.

In essence, the university treated us like adults. They provided an opportunity to get a first class education, and if you didn't take full advantage of that, that was your problem.

The students liked this state of affairs immensely, and if you did cheat (and thereby threaten the honor system) you would be ostracized. Peer pressure can be extremely effective. I don't know anyone who cheated.

For example, I know one student who, 1 hour into a 3 hour exam, fell asleep. He woke up a couple hours later, and finished the exam anyway. But he told the professor what had happened, and the professor was very sorry but he had to fail the student. The student was not angry about this, he blamed himself and took responsibility.

<comment><USER22> "In essence, the university treated us like adults."

The funny thing is that most adults aren't "treated like adults" if your intention is to compare this with working conditions. There are very few jobs that don't care about attendance at all and only care if you get the project done right and on time. I'm not saying it should be this way but rather just that it is. It could be because most jobs don't employ everyone who is of the same high quality of character as you relate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is just an anecdote, but I've heard that even if some professors strongly suspect cheating, since the system involves so much red tape and leaves the professor with little power, it is simply not worth pursuing it and ending up losing upwards of half a day. This means, professors, whose free time is already perilously low have all the incentives in the world not to pursue students who cheat, which only makes it that much easier for them to get away with it.

</comment><comment><USER23> Fairly useless unless you know the institution in question, how widespread the problem is, and whether or not it has been worsening.

My personal observation is that many of the structure in question is oriented specifically towards jocks who are recruited for their brawn and not brains and are expected to spend much more time building muscle than exercising their noggins. Given that my personal observation is limited to an ivy league institution, I'd imagine this would be all the more so at a large public institution in the American South, in which sports are probably considered more important than book smarts. Moreover, many of the recruits (coming from impoverished inner-city schools where they are moved from grade to grade regardless of their performance) are likely completely incapable of performing basic algebra, let alone the sort of math they would be expected to do in standard university level courses.

In other words, this sort of behavior is entirely expected given the nature of these institutions and probably is a fixture in them, likely neither worsening nor improving.

<comment><USER24> In my experience, football players usually get special incompletes. Basically, what happens is that if they are in danger of failing a class, the coach demands that they do a lot of practices during the game. They then get an incomplete and get to retake the course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've noticed less bureaucratic outcomes in the cases I've observed, but that might be good luck. If it's especially blatant, such as a student turning in an essay that is on the internet, the informal procedure is that the professor says, "this essay was clearly on the internet, you didn't write it, you get an F on it". The student could insist on a formal process (which is probably required), but the outcome of a formal process could result in them being suspended or expelled entirely, so if the evidence is solid, is probably not a good gamble. Admittedly a bit trickier when it isn't a piece of paper like that.

Personally it doesn't bother me _that_ much, because the problems I'm worried about fixing in education have more to do with learning than the value of degrees. If people who want to learn aren't supported as well as they could be, or are even actively discouraged/demotivated, then that's a big problem and something teachers/lecturers/professors need to worry about. If people who never wanted to learn are getting degrees they don't deserve, meh, I guess that's bad, but we pay administrators to worry about PR things like the university's image, so let them come up with a policy to deal with it (or fix admissions to let in fewer such students). There's even a few cases of opinionated smart kids cheating because they don't find the assignments helpful, in which case I don't even really care about them doing so (and maybe even care more about whether we can fix the assignments instead), though admittedly that isn't the common case.

</comment><comment><USER26> For better or worse, this is the same of type of action schools take on major offenses. In universities, first possession of marijuana or underage drinking is dealt with a warning and perhaps community service. In the real world, there are real consequences for these actions as well as plagiarism.

I guess college tuition is really just an insurance policy for crimes?

<comment><USER27> "Major offenses...first possession of marijuana or underage drinking..."

That's what qualifies as major? I don't give a damn if my classmates drink and blaze; I _do_ care if they cheat and implicitly lower the value of my degree in the process.

Then again, _nobody_ at my school cares about liquor or pot, so I guess it's hard to compare it to schools that view either as an actual issue.

<comment><USER26> I'm just saying from an objective, legal perspective. Some of these universities are public so you would think they would more strongly enforce the law. When you're really young, you get a lot of lenience based on your age. In college, I'm not really sure why you would get an excuse?

If it's about finding yourself, then it's just temporary and artificial. Whatever you thought you knew no longer applies once the "rules" change. /rant

<comment><USER27> Where I am (BC, Canada), the drinking age is 19 and nobody, police included, cares about weed. So I guess for colleges, underage drinking would only be a problem for freshmen. Even then, there are dorm parties all the time and no one on campus cares about liquor.

I've never heard of campus security hassling anyone over substances. Hell, we even have a "420 club" that meets on wednesdays at 4:20 on the field in the center of campus and smokes piles of weed. I guess attitudes towards substances are just much more relaxed here than most places in the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I was on one of these academic integrity hearing boards as a student representative at Cornell. In my experience the board was strongly in favor of failing students outright and adding a notation to their academic record. It's not as bad as expelling them from the university. But it's not like it was some softball slap on the wrist either.

And the cases we were presiding over were not simple. We had a case where a student started a test early, as the exams were being handed out, but before everyone got a copy, and we took that as a serious violation of academic integrity (this student was not completely failed out of the course.)

Our objective was not at all to "mildly scare the students until they Learn Their Lesson and then let them off the hook."

</comment><comment><USER29> Some universities have _very_ strict punishments for cheating - <USER2> including kicking students out of the school, permanently. Having due process in place in order to ensure that those punishments are meted out fairly is a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER30> Former TA here. It's surprising how often I've heard people use "I didn't know we weren't supposed to plagiarize" as an excuse. It seems to be the first line of defense for people who were caught copying and pasting large portions of an assignment from the internet.

Personally, I've stopped worrying about it. If people cheat themselves out of an education, that's unfortunate, but hard to avoid. Focus on doing the best job possible for the people who _are_ there to learn; there aren't enough hours in the day to try to impose an education on unwilling people by force, and they'll hate you for trying.

</comment><comment><USER31> Wow thats the exact opposite to the environment I'm in. The lecturers in my department are pretty much omnipotent in that regard. If one of them were determined enough he/she could kill a students career in the field (accounting & auditing) completely & permanently. Student gets blacklisted at all universities providing that qualification country-wide for ethics violation of that nature. Its only for that qualification though not a complete blacklisting & the other departments aren't nearly as strict or powerful.

</comment><comment><USER32> As a teaching assistant I occasionally came across cheaters. Dealing with them can be a very painful process.

In one case students were plagiarizing homework assignments. The instructor invited the accused into his office and presented them with the evidence. He gave them the option of withdrawing from the course or going before a dean. They elected to withdraw. There was some ugly personal fallout from this incident.

</comment><comment><USER33> For another point of view, as long as we are slinging ancedotes . . .

My wife teaches a large, but graduate level, seminar. Every semester, a small number of students are caught blatantly plagiarizing sources in papers. These cases are required to be handed over to a student-staffed and managed honor court.

In every case that has been handed over to them, the student-staffed and managed honor court has failed the student.

<comment><USER34> Another anecdote: my wife's teaching a class at MIT now, and they have problems with homeworks being basically copied from the MIT OpenCourseWare web site, which apparently contains the solution to pretty much any problem given in any of the previous years' classes. I'm actually genuinely troubled by what to think of this unfortunate intersection between unprecedented access to information and requiring students to do work beyond Googling...

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> At my school, before every test and on every major assignment, each student had to write out the school's written Honor Code and then sign it, serving as a contract through which they could nail you to the wall if you got caught cheating.

</comment><comment><USER36> What does this rant have to do with the honor system? I don't appreciate the author throwing mud at a great self-governing system used in many schools by invoking its name when it's not even relevant here.

</comment><comment><USER37> This drawn-out diatribe irks me. You _chose_ to teach at that school, so you should be familiar with the cheating/plagiarism policy. Should you not?

</comment><comment><USER38> I had a professor who told the class to cheat. He justified it by saying that anyone in the real world today can go online and get help for any problem they have. Another unspoken reason is that he would not cover the material he would test us on, which was not in the book either, so allowing cheating would cut down on student complaints and let him do less work. I complained about it and nothing happened since he was tenured and close to retiring. One might say he already did.

</comment><comment><USER39> The penalty for cheating should be: you fail the course in which you cheated and withdraw from all others. You're immediately suspended. You can't get back into the college until you've logged 12 months of gainful employment in "the real world". (Military service counts.)

Yes, the real world. Where you can do nothing wrong and get fired for looking at a powerful person the wrong way, and where people actually struggle. Ok, so get out there and have that experience. Now you know (a) that you're very privileged, as a college student, and (b) you have no right to complain about the unfairness of an 'F' for cheating; it's not unfair. Once you've learned that lesson, welcome back but don't fucking do it again.

<comment><USER40> Privileged? Ha. What a odd way of putting it. In what way is going to school a privilege? It's almost expected for everyone to go to a college/university nowadays. In what way is a college student privileged?

If you get caught cheating in a class, fail him or her in THAT CLASS. Mention it in their academic report, so that other teachers in the university are aware, and they the teachers themselves can decide whether or not they want that particular individual in their classroom.

<comment><USER41> A college student is privileged in that they have the free time to _learn_ , all day every day. They may not realize how special this is until they decide, at thirty while supporting a family, that they want another degree -- and they do it via night classes, working eight hours a day and studying four, and it takes a decade.

<comment><USER40> I don't want to get too pedantic, and this may be beginning to get off-topic, and for that I apologize. But your example still isn't one of a privilege. What your example shows is that it is easier to concentrate on one thing instead of two or three things. Is time really free if you're choosing to just concentrate on one thing? Joke all we want that being a student is a job, but in most ways it is a job. Maybe not as strict as one, but if you're doing it properly, it should be as consuming as one.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Single-dose propranolol tied to 'selective erasure' of anxiety disorders - <AUTHOR> https://www.mdedge.com/psychiatry/article/191908/anxiety-disorders/single-dose-propranolol-tied-selective-erasure-anxiety <comment><USER3> As someone who has used propranolol on and off over the past few years, the thing that intrigues me here is that propranolol works well in this instance _due to crossing the blood /brain barrier_ as opposed to other beta blockers that do not.

The use of beta blockers in anxiety is commonly associated with reducing the effects of stress on heart rate and blood pressure, not necessarily on affecting the brain directly which appears to be happening here. That is, beta blockers are usually a _band aid_ rather than a fix, so this discovery is exciting.

(As an aside, if you suffer from unusual levels of physical response to certain stimuli while intellectually remaining calm or indifferent, propranolol may be worth investigating for you as it has helped me a lot. At your own risk, of course.)

<comment><USER4> If you are out there and suffer daily 'stage fright' or serious social anxiety - propranolol is the drug for you. That weird fear that sweeps over you before a conversation - just doesn't happen. Need to talk in front of 50 people in 25 minutes? No problem. If you are crippled by social anxiety - this pill will turn you into Bradley Cooper in Limitless.

<comment><USER5> Maybe I'm an outlier, but it had absolutely no effect on me for public speaking or social situations. I was prescribed a lot of it, tried for years and even still have some sitting around. I envy those who get the effects you describe.

<comment><USER6> Yeah it slows my heart rate and chills me out a little but it's no magic cure for generalized social anxiety in my case. I've had better outcomes from eliminating caffeine.

I do like that (for me) Propranolol has minimal side effects other than mild drowsiness.

<comment><USER7> yes same, caffeine was one of the culprits for me too. i kicked it out entirely. much much better nowadays

<comment><USER8> Cutting out caffeine reduced social anxiety? I guess I can see the connection, but I don't think I've ever heard this mentioned before, or I just haven't heard about it.

<comment><USER9> Yes of course because it makes one less jittery. But I think the positive side effects outweigh the negative: drinking coffee is social and so is staying awake long.

<comment><USER10> after heavily consuming caffeine for some time it no longer keeps you awake (I can drink a monster energy drink and immediately go to sleep). If you're just drinking coffee socially I'd be willing to bet you're not having any symptoms that affect your daily life

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> These effects are due to the fact that it readily crosses the BBB because of its high lipophilicity. It is also responsible for various other CNS side- effects such as: brain fog, sedation, vivid dreams, sleep disturbances, and rarely, depression and short-term memory issues. In contrast, low lipid solubility is associated with a lower incidence of CNS adverse effects due to the fact that it makes it difficult to cross the BBB.

Additionally, these effects may actually elicit anxiety in some individuals (especially those who get anxious over changes in their mental state and whatnot), which in turn also affects its effects on the heart rate. In such cases hydrophilic beta-blockers would do the job. I prefer labetalol as it has alpha-blocking properties and counters the catecholamine-induced (from anxiety) alpha stimulation which contributes to the increased heart rate as well.

</comment><comment><USER12> Living with someone with crippling PTSD and anxiety disorders, I'm thrilled to hear about this study.

As someone who's dealt with an oppressive government (which is where the PTSD and anxiety came from), I wonder if this therapy can be weaponized by the powerful to oppress the powerless. The rise of the warrior cop is bad enough, but what about a crack squad that has been chemically desensitized to killing in cold blood, taking orders from corrupt officials? Great for the warrior cop's medical prognosis, not so great if you're his target.

I believe many people in prison got there through some form of fear. Fear they'd get found out, fear they'd lose something, fear for their life, fear from their childhood they lost the ability to deal with, fear they self- medicated leading to a crime. If this technology makes it out of the proverbial Petri dish, I'm hoping we as a society could substitute a session for 10+ years of incarceration. We'd end up safer, less poor, and more just.

<comment><USER13> That worry feels like a stretch, because right now, the many oppressive governments of the world are not in the least suffering logistical difficulties due to their stormtroopers getting PTSD.

There are I think 2 main reasons why not:

\- Stormtroopers are people who have non functioning empathy, by nature or nurture, they don't experience killing in cold blood as horrific.

\- Stormtroopers are a cheap commodity. The oppressive government doesn't mind using them up.

On the other hand the people who _are_ subject to crippling PTSD are victims of stormtroopers, directly and via losing friends. And a few doses of this stuff smuggled in might effectively reignite the fire in a resistance movement.

<comment><USER14> Isis grunts were regularly given stimulants to keep them awake and alert. The future he/she describes isn't _that_ far off

<comment><USER15> This goes back much further. In the Vietnam war the US issued amphetamines to soldiers, and the British used it by the truckload during WWII.

<comment><USER16> And the nazis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Propranolol massively improved my quality of life. I used to get panicked at the prospect of public speaking, but with propranolol I feel like I could give a nationally televised State of the Union address with no problem.

I take it only before public speaking, not regularly. The only downside is it leaves me with dry eyes and exhaustion at the end of the day, but it's a small price to pay for the huge QoL improvement.

<comment><USER18> Do you think that eliminating the extreme fear -> everything is fine sequence would prevent you from learning to naturally handle public speaking?

<comment><USER17> Honestly, there is a chance I'm dependent on it now. But I'm still okay with that being a trade off. So long as I always have at least 40 minutes notice before having to do public speaking, I should be fine.

<comment><USER19> What if you have poor speaking mannerisms or public speaking/story telling mechanics (e.g. applying emphasis to words, voice inflection, intonation, etc.) to engage a crowd or simply lack social awareness from being on the spectrum, will the drug make you confidently make a fool of yourself in front of a crowd if you haven't practiced the art of public speaking?

Thanks for sharing your experience!

<comment><USER17> Exactly, it'd just let you confidently make a fool of yourself, it won't automatically make you a skilled orator.

The ideal approach would be to take propranolol, then use that confidence to take public speaking classes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This does not surprise me one bit. I was prescribed beta blockers for "heart problems" that turned out to be panic attacks and I noticed the same effects. On beta blockers you're able to talk about unpleasant memories as casually as one would note the weather. It's a surreal experience, but a useful one.

Before this it was easy to shut down and avoid confronting bad memories. Now I can just brush away everything. Another great property to propranolol is it reduces the jitteriness from caffeine. Granted, if your anxiety is bad enough to need beta blockers that's definitely not a good thing, but at least the medication works well for what it does.

This kind of medication is far superior to benzos for anxiety disorders. It was pure luck to have been prescribed this instead of getting put on some horrible downer, developing a tolerance in a few months, and then having to detox with rebound symptoms that are worse than the illness being treated. There seems to be a lot of promising developments in psychiatry recently.

<comment><USER21> If caffeine makes you jittery, try out those time-release caffeine pills and a tall glass of water. I've replaced morning coffee this way, and it's great.

<comment><USER22> Why not just cut out caffeine? You'll be in a slump for a month but once you're past that energy levels and alertness will be back to normal. I used to drink caffeinated water after I gave up soda until I realized it was kind of ridiculous. Taking a caffeine pill strikes me similarly.

<comment><USER23> If you really like the effects of caffeine, with a pill you don't have to worry about the carcinogens (acrylamide) in toasted coffee. Also, pills can be cheaper than any bought or made-at-home coffee It's not ridiculous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is also pictured in NOVA: memory hackers on Netflix (last accessed in Brazil, in case it is region locked). It documents the process of treating arachnophobia in a patient that clearly has an extreme aversion to spiders and it is incredible.

<comment><USER25> Stupid question: can you watch it if you have arachnophobia yourself?

<comment><USER24> sorry I was late to answer. Yep, it just shows one tarantula by itself and the participant is asked to try to touch the spider, and that is it. I guess if you are triggered that easily you could skip the scene, but the spider scene is very mild

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I have been taking low dosage Propranolol for about a year now. It was prescribed for me for my hemiplegic migraines. Combined with exercise and occasional CBD oil it has completely eliminated migraines from my life.

This medication is absolutely brilliant and harmless. Also keeps my resting heart rate around 55.

If you struggle with migraines, talk to your neurologist, for me it was a life changer.

<comment><USER27> My resting heart rate is about 55, and I don't do a lot (arguably not any) of cardio. I'm probably in the group of people who shouldn't take propranolol.

<comment><USER28> my resting heart rate was high 30s-low 40s. I was put on propranolol and now my resting heart rate is in the mid 40s. I am the exact opposite of an athlete.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm really curious where social anxiety comes from. I get it though not crippling most of the time. But for example public speaking I can logically see that I publicly speak any time I'm at dinner with friends or voice my thoughts in a meeting so it's strange to me that officially speaking would have so different a feeling but it does.

<comment><USER27> For me it's the anticipation of putting myself on the line. I can speak up in meetings where I know i'm an authority, but struggle to do so when I don't have that role. Social situations with people I don't know well will nearly always have me looking for ways to avoid it, even though I've been told repeatedly that I'm very personable. I've done group salsa performances in front of hundreds (possibly thousands) of people, but I need to get very drunk to do regular club (not salsa) dancing.

My best guess as to the origin is the environment at home when growing up. Without going into too much detail, it was very stressful and I felt like I didn't have a voice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm curious if it affects emotional reconsolidation of other emotions and not just fear. If someone takes a dose before reminiscing about, say, their wedding day, will it remove or flatten those emotional associations as well?

</comment><comment><USER31> NYT article from 2016: A Drug to Cure Fear [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/opinion/sunday/a-drug- to-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/opinion/sunday/a-drug-to-cure- fear.html)

</comment><comment><USER32> I take propranolol with ADHD medication to help negate some of the anxiety/raised heart rate effects.

I'm not sure if I've noticed a difference with anxiety while on it, other than the mitigation of anxiety from ADHD medication.

I guess I should try taking it alone.

That being said, a large part of my psychological issues are due to anxiety, but I haven't seen any treatments that have been compelling enough for me to try (SSRI's/benzos mainly).

I do exercise, try to be good about sleep, try to force myself to get out with friends or family every other week or so.

Additionally, I've noticed meditation to be a large help for me with anxiety. It took me a while to where I really notice the difference, but I've reached a point where I can say I notice if I've meditated the night before or not.

(I'm not advocating for or against any medication, individual situations vary, and people should consider treatment in the context of their situation with their doctor)

<comment><USER33> > I take propranolol with ADHD medication to help negate some of the > anxiety/raised heart rate effects.

Happy to hear someone else does this as well. It's really done wonders and has helped me think more clearly in stressful situations — whereas, with stimulants alone, things can become a little more stressful when you're stressed due to increased heart rate and blood pressure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Propanalol has been a life-saver for me as a non-narcotic anxiety and stress reliever.

</comment><comment><USER35> From Wikipedia:

"In a 1987 study by the International Conference of Symphony and Opera Musicians, it was shown that 27% of interviewed members admitted to using beta blockers such as propranolol for musical performances.[70] For about 10–16% of performers, their degree of stage fright is considered pathological.[70][71] Propranolol is used by musicians, actors, and public speakers for its ability to treat anxiety symptoms activated by the sympathetic nervous system.[72] It has also been used as a performance-enhancing drug in sports where high accuracy is required, including archery, shooting, golf[73] and snooker.[73] In the 2008 Summer Olympics, 50-metre pistol silver medalist and 10-metre air pistol bronze medalist Kim Jong-su tested positive for propranolol and was stripped of his medals.[74]"

</comment><comment><USER36> > "The effects are pretty amazing," Dr. Soeter said. "Everything is treatable. > It's almost too good to be true, but these are our findings."

Honestly yes. And it even sounds a bit scary, to me, that a drug that is very un-selective produces such a selective effect (erasing a _specific_ kind of memory under very specific conditions). It sounds a little bit like striking a welding arc a couple times in just the right way next to a computer to flip a few specific bits in it's main memory -- absolutely astounding that it works, but who knows what else happened in there?

That being said I very much hope that this turns out to not produce {short,long}-term damage, because anxiety orders are very difficult to treat and are a huge waste of human ability.

<comment><USER34> > erasing a specific kind of memory under very specific conditions

Why do you think it erases the memory?

<comment><USER36> > Propranolol achieves selective erasure: It targets the emotional component, > but knowledge is intact. They know what happened, but they aren't scared > anymore. The fear association is affected, but not the innate fear response > to a threat stimulus [...] This single-session therapy addressing what > psychologists call fear memory reconsolidation

emotional/fear association sounds like a type of memory to me.

<comment><USER37> Read "The Body Keeps the Score", it is. Your entire nervous system has a memory, not just your brain.

[https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429941-200-the- life...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429941-200-the-lifelong- cost-of-burying-our-traumatic-experiences/amp/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I've used it about once every other week to chill myself out in the morning when I am too worried about other things to focus on what I need to. Side effect of nausea though can hit me like 1 in 4 times, so I am really selective about when I take it. Its helpful as an adjunct (for me), but not curative, and not something I feel like I could take every day long term.

</comment><comment><USER39> > _The propranolol must be given within roughly an hour before to 1 hour after > therapeutic reactivation of the fear memory to be effective._ [...] _when > subjects were rechallenged 12 hours after taking propranolol the previous > day – that is, after a night's sleep – the fear memory was gone_

Oh wow, I'd be keen to give it a go:

1\. Standing next to an edge of a tall building.

2\. In a tightly enclosed space.

<comment><USER40> The idea of not having a fear of heights is generating a mild anxiety in me.

<comment><USER41> Yeah, but that just makes one careful. On the other hand, not being able to climb a ladder, be too close to a window on the 3rd floor, or other such things would suck. You can then keep the knowledge that some heights are dangerous without actually having the fear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> A lot of people are saying it's "erasing" the memory. I actually think the way it works is much simpler. I've read that when you relive any memory your brain essentially unloads it, then rewrites it (sometimes in a modified form).

So like think loading a block of memory then rewriting it, but this time you rewrite the memory without the associated anxiety.

<comment><USER43> As a person with depression and anxiety, I've definitely noticed my memories change based on my mood whenever I recall them. I'd remember professors having harsh tones and cold body language, but then see them acting completely different in a class a year or two later. They hadn't changed; it was that, during my depressive episodes, I'd always obsess over classes I skipped or failed.

I took it as a product of not having a photographic memory. When my mind recalled the memory, there were a lot of parts missing: hand gestures, voice volume, other students, etc. So my brain filled in those gaps with "reasonable" guesses. And, during a depressive episode, it was reasonable to assume other people didn't like me. These additions became part of the memory.

Even with the depression and anxiety under control, I keep in mind that memories can be emotionally altered. So I'm more willing to believe my memories are wrong. And I don't let myself obsess over a memory, which was never productive, anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> > Fifteen received 40 mg of propranolol after spending 2 minutes in proximity > to a large tarantula, 15 got placebo, and another 15 received propranolol > without exposure to a tarantula.

What about a group who was exposed to the tarantula without the propranolol?

<comment><USER45> The 15 that got placebo didn't get propranolol

<comment><USER46> But it's not clear if they were exposed to the tarantula.

<comment><USER47> from the punctuation and sentence structure, it is saying that "15 got placebo" meaning in the same situation as the previous statement (with tarantula). Also, what purpose would there be to having people take a placebo and be in a normal situation?

Coincidentally, I recently listened to an interesting Revisionist History episode that covered the importance and controversy of a semicolon in the interpretation of a section of the constitution

[http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/21-divide-and- conquer](http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/21-divide-and-conquer)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Use in anxiety disorders is not really a new phenomenon. It's a non-selective beta blocker that's been used in performance anxiety for decades. I have to give a talk in 6 months and I'm going to prescribe myself propranolol so I can give the talk without feeling adrenergic sympathetic activation/fight or flight. So if I can't feel a sympathetic response centrally or peripherally, I'm going to have minimal performance anxiety and therefore no fearful memories of the event. Hopefully it goes smoothly. I would hate to be calm and give a pathetic shitshow of a talk and then not feel bad about it later..

</comment><comment><USER49> This sounds extremely similar to results discovered a while back about the antibiotic D-cycloserine. The referenced paper does briefly mention D-cycloserine, but indicates that the effect is different without going into much detail.

</comment><comment><USER50> I've read a lot of comments about taking propranolol before an anxiety inducing event. I agree it is incredibly useful there. But for me, it is also useful afterwards. It causes amnesia of fear memories. Instead of having my mind race and thinking of all the small mistakes I may have made, I can think normally and actually focus on things after a tough event.

</comment><comment><USER51> I bet this discovery is related to another recent discovery: "Blocking IgSF9b in pathologically anxious mice has an anxiolytic effect and normalises anxiety behaviour in these animals." (see [https://www.mpg.de/12620765/anxiety- protein-amygdala](https://www.mpg.de/12620765/anxiety-protein-amygdala))

</comment><comment><USER52> I was temporally prescribed metoprolol for some palpitations but also discovered it does helps with anxiety symptoms, so I still use it sometimes. At first it gave me nightmares but they stopped. I wanted to try propranolol (probably better) but I read the side effects are worse than those of metoprolol so I didn't.

Edit: I read the side effects are basically the same, including ED.

<comment><USER53> As described at the link above, it would be inappropriate/harmful for a physician to prescribe more than a single dose of propranolol for this purpose — to be taken in concert with a therapeutic session and likely never again — but absolutely not as a take-home prescription of more than a single pill. This is the same type of prescribing regimen that we're finding out psilocybin works with too, and you wouldn't get a take-home supply of that either.

That you can acquire the drug readily for other medical reasons is not in any way a reason to start self-prescribing it for anxiety. Without the trauma- inducing psych session, the anti-PTSD benefit they describe has no chance to occur. And it's a bad plan to give yourself traumatic recall flashbacks - <USER2> bad trip by any definition - without some sort of competent mental support from competent human beings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I wouldn't have been able to do any kind of public speaking without propranolol, it takes away all my anxiety.

</comment><comment><USER55> I've taken this before for anxiety and while I do think it helps massively, it certainly isn't a single dose silver bullet. IMO you need to take it every time before the thing that causes you anxiety.

</comment><comment><USER56> I take propranolol for migraine prevention - I found it really did have a fear and anxiety erasing effect at first - however eventually I became "accustomed" to it. It still seems to help some though.

</comment><comment><USER57> > The researchers next conducted a randomized, double-blind clinical trial in > 45 individuals with arachnophobia. Fifteen received 40 mg of propranolol > after spending 2 minutes in proximity to a large tarantula, 15 got placebo, > and another 15 received propranolol without exposure to a tarantula. One > week later, all patients who received propranolol with spider exposure were > able to approach and actually pet the tarantula.

<comment><USER58> Please refrain from simply quoting the article, adding nothing to the conversation. It's a blatant attempt at upvote harvesting from the TLDR crowd, and doesn't belong on HN

<comment><USER57> The article is behind a paywall and I thought this snippet properly summarized it.

<comment><USER36> > The article is behind a paywall

I didn't see one.

<comment><USER59> I had access at first. On reload it redirected to a paywall.

[https://outline.com/VRzuMJ](https://outline.com/VRzuMJ)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Don't some people who have, say, a social anxiety disorder already take a dose of propranolol one hour before a social event? So isn't this discovery already widely known among propranolol users?

<comment><USER61> Yes, but this research (even though similar research occurred prior) is about "guided therapy" where the therapist is trying to specifically trigger a memory but also help the patient figure out new coping strategies and turning those new coping strategies into habits so the automatic anxiety induced habit is not the only coping mechanism.

Taking a dose of propranolol prior to a stressful situation is a different type of environment with different goals for how will interact with the environment.

\----

This is not new research for we had replication research of the connection with specific Beta receptors in the amygdala and the hippocampus in 2004 with fear and Yadda, Yadda, Yadda... with prior breakthrough research happening even earlier. But there are so many interactions with so many systems that research after 2004 is about learning the "best practices and best applications" of how to treat patients. Science and Medicine is a continuous undertaken process. This researcher M Soeter has a dozen important scientific papers on the detail of this process from 2009 to 2018.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is there some way to see this without the paywall?

I realize I'm just one data point, but as someone with anxiety, I studied up on the use of propranolol in fear extinction and was able to get my doctor to prescribe it around 5 years ago. It had absolutely no positive effect on me. I may as well have been taking aspirin. It did, however seem to have some negative effects on my memory. If I met someone while on it, I would often not recognize them if we met again. It's like it prevented my brain from recording their face to my long term memory.

I was on nothing else but blood pressure medication, by the way.

<comment><USER59> [https://outline.com/VRzuMJ](https://outline.com/VRzuMJ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Nonpaywalled > [https://outline.com/VRzuMJ](https://outline.com/VRzuMJ)

</comment><comment><USER62> Soma anyone?

</comment><comment><USER59> Weird. I had access and then a paywall Came up the next time I accessed it.

</comment><comment><USER63> Incredible, amazing, wonderful -- and a bit scary.

Imagine this being used to erase more complex memories, like that person you dated for two weeks that broke your heart.

<comment><USER64> No knowledge is lost, just the emotional reaction.

<comment><USER59> How would it work if instead of thinking of spiders, you thought of your wife?

Would you lose your feelings of love?

This seems like an incredible drug, I'd like to do some self experimentation.

Also, if people have been taking this for anxiety, why haven't they been cured?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Maybe also useful for training suicide commandos.</comment>


Art of Unit Testing 3rd Edition with Examples in JavaScript (Early Access) - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/royosherove/status/1203333005063917569 <comment><AUTHOR> Roy here. If you have any questions about the upcoming edition let me know.</comment>


Amazon SingleCue – Gesture Control for Your TV and Entertainment Devices - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/eyeSight-Technologies-singlecue-Entertainment-Connected/dp/B01080IRRO <comment><USER2> Title is misleading -- this isn't by Amazon.</comment>