Ask scientists to provide answers consistent with the code of ethics of a scientist by implementing TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE in PUBLIC, OPEN WORKSHOPS
Sign the Petition
To: Leaders of funding agencies who handle donations and taxpayers money,
To: Leaders of organizations with a Mission Statement to be working in the interest of the public
To: The media, responsible for reporting information in the public interest
Dear leaders of funding agencies and leaders of organizations with a Mission Statement to be working in the public interest,
Respectfully, on behalf of taxpayers and humanity who are deprived of the benefits from advancements in science, we bring to your attention examples that DO NOT ADD UP, and ask you to STOP FUNDING projects whose authors refuse TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE.
Their refusal to implement open, public scientific procedures which would enable scientists to question each other publicly about the most cost-effective scientific solutions to the biggest humanitarian problems is wasting taxpayer money on projects known in advance would not provide substantial benefits to humanity, while depriving them of beneficial innovations that can demonstrate to be more cost-effective.
In the following paragraphs you can read a few examples that DO NOT ADD UP when calculations and logical reasoning showed in advance that funding these projects would not provide substantial benefits to humanity (in some cases even cheating and damaging taxpayers), yet they received and continue to receive funding, while solutions known for more than a decade would greatly reduce the enormous cost to taxpayers and save millions of lives remains unfunded.
The mainstream direction of the improvement of PET efficiency DOES NOT ADD UP
PET (Positron Emission Tomography) is a technique whose principle of operation measures abnormalities in biological processes, e.g. an abnormal consumption of nutrient from body cells, typical for cancer cells. For more than a decade, research scientist, Dario Crosetto, has been writing articles and giving presentations explaining that to increase PET efficiency, sensitivity should be increased by capturing as many signals as possible from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured. This will provide the capability of identifying tumors with a single exam, in all organs of the body, at their earliest stage, and at the lowest examination cost. Instead, scientists who approve articles and fund projects have been asking for an improvement in PET spatial resolution, which is equivalent to asking the manufacturer of a water meter to improve the instrument so that it can measure the size of pipes and not the flow of water.
Solution to the challenging problem of effective early cancer detection in all organs of the body with a single examination at an affordable cost: the 3D-CBS
The 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening. See the video) is a new PET/CT technology, 400 times more efficient than the technology used in the current 5,000 PET/CT devices in capturing more signals at a lower cost per each valid signal captured from tumor markers. It has the potential to replace many tests such as the mammogram, colonoscopy, etc., with an effective single screening test to detect cancer and other diseases in most organs of the body at an early, curable stage.
Answers received from NIH DO NOT ADD UP with the mission to improve healthcare
For more than a decade, Crosetto corresponded with leaders at the National Institute of Health (NIH), participated at press conferences by NIH Director, met the Director of NIH-SBIR, submitted ten grant applications which were rejected because they had ignored the flawed request of improving PET spatial resolution and other non-scientific reasons. But, NIH leaders could not provide a solution to Crosettoâ€™s request for transparency in science because the review process of proposals is run by scientists who assign taxpayer money among themselves, behind closed doors, without having to be accountable to support their claims with scientific evidence.
Statements made by CPRITâ€™s scientific committee DO NOT ADD UP
Another example where transparency in science was denied, leading to the mishandling of millions of dollars in tax-payer money, was after Texas State Senator Jane Nelson, whose initiative raised $3 billion for cancer research that the State of Texas assigned to CPRIT (Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas), encouraged Crosetto to submit a proposal to them, which he did on October 8, 2009. However, CPRITâ€™s scientific review committee did not even read Crosettoâ€™s 15-page scientific proposal, but rather â€śtriaged it outâ€ť based on the title: â€ś3D Complete Body Screening (3D-CBS) for Early Cancer Detection Targeted to Reduce Premature Cancer Death at a Lower Cost per Life Saved Compared to Current Costâ€ť, and the 1500 character Abstract and Significance substantiating the title. Evidently, reducing premature cancer death and saving money whilst doing so was not part of the goal of this review panel of scientists.
CERN Director of Research statements DO NOT ADD UP and are an insult to science, taxpayers and cancer patients
Cancer patient Lillo Mulone (who recently succumbed to cancer and to whom Crosetto made a promise) was able to organize a meeting in 2011 between Crosetto and the scientist, Sergio Bertolucci, who holds the most prestigious and powerful position in science in the world as Director of Research at CERN, where the largest and most expensive experiment in the history of the planet is being conducted. Finally, the scientific issues about PET spatial resolution and sensitivity could be addressed. Crosetto provided scientific evidence showing Bertolucciâ€™s approach to his Axial-PET component for medical imaging had major conceptual flaws using cables and gaps between crystal detectors resulting in more than 50% of the detector incapable of capturing any signals from tumor markers, making the device less efficient and more expensive than current PET devices. Upon hearing the evidence, Bertolucci shot from the hip, first declaring his own incompetence in medical imaging, then shifting the blame to Christian Joram, the Chief Engineer building the Axial-PET device, and finally putting the responsibility on doctors from Marseille who were requesting the Axial-PET component having those characteristics. As Bertolucci tried to shift responsibility, he accidentally revealed he had been project manager of Axial-PET, essentially declaring that by awarding it first prize in 2010, he had in fact assigned the prize to himself. The Association Madame Curie, among others, was certainly fooled by this first prize win because they funded the Axial PET even though it was less efficient and more expensive than current PET devices used in hospital, and its Chief Engineer, C. Joram, had publicly declared in an interview that â€śit is not a cancer projectâ€ť. Since this meeting in January 2011, Crosetto and Vigna have tried unsuccessfully to address issues with Bertolucci but he has continued with his dishonesty, corruption and cover ups by giving arrogant, sometimes contradictory and inconsistent answers to legitimate questions. By hiding the scientific truth he is damaging taxpayers and cancer patients instead of advancing science, reducing suffering and saving taxpayers a lot of money.
The Claims & Projects of the Deputy Chairman of the IEEE-MIC Conference DO NOT ADD UP
Craig Levin, Deputy Chairman of the most important Medical Imaging conference at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD, rejected Crosettoâ€™s abstract having the same title as the proposal submitted to CPRIT in 2009 mentioned in the previous paragraph. Crosetto and Levin began what became a series of emails that were copied to numerous leaders holding top scientific positions and to a few philanthropists and politicians who have the public trust in handling their tax-money.
It should have been clear from the arguments in the emails at: http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/809.pdf that Levinâ€™s claims just DO NOT ADD UP. This was admitted by Levin himself after his presentation M25-4 on November 2, 2013, at the 2013 IEEE-MIC conference, when Crosetto was able to ask him four questions to help explain or deny how his very high spatial resolution PET module could reduce cancer deaths and cost. LevinÂ had to ADMIT it could not reduce cancer deaths and costÂ because the efficiency of his PET module was too low, the radiation to the patient too high, and the examination cost too expensive. Transparency in science when open and public would have made it clear to the scientific community that Crosettoâ€™s claims were correct and that Levinâ€™s project and articles should be stopped immediately. Instead, dishonesty, corruption and cover ups, kicked in again.
In this specific case, a possible explanation why many scientists pursue improvements to PET spatial resolution, detrimental to high sensitivity and to lower costs, is that the cancer industry needs to support the products they sell (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, medical imaging devicesâ€¦), so they request instrumentation which can measure the smallest shrinkage of a tumor attributed to their drug. However, studies show it is not localized tumors that kill people but the process of metastasis that kills people. While we understand the request for a parameter that increases sales, scientists should be faulted for not providing their ethical and professional knowledge of which measuring technique is more cost-effective to accurately measure this parameter without putting patientsâ€™ health and lives at risk. Supporting the implementation of transparency in science clarifies the role of science and industry in a society which should always aim to bring maximum benefit to humanity.
Unethical scientists in Medical Imaging powered by taxpayer money crushed scientific evidence. These inconsistencies could be resolved with transparency in science in public, open workshops
Without providing scientific reasons, several chairmen and/or reviewers of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in 2002, 2004, 2007, 2008, etc., rejected Crosettoâ€™s abstracts, including the one having the same title as the 2009 CPRIT submission mentioned previously. Also, this year IEEE-MIC Chair, Georges Alfakhri, Deputy Katia Parodi, and their team of reviewers rejected Crosettoâ€™s Abstract of a ultrasentitive, low cost 3D-CBS and his proposal for a workshop to allow senior scientists, young scientists and PhD students to present their project/idea and question each other in a two-hour discussion. Inconsistent with the ethics of science, they did approve Levinâ€™s Abstracts, even though he admitted the inadequacies of his PET module for high spatial resolution after his 2013 IEEE-MIC presentation (see previous column). Likewise, scientists who have obstructed and prevented Crosetto from presenting his ultrasensitive, low cost 3D-CBS at past IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences such as Joel Karp are now presenting the EXPLORER project, similar to the 3D-CBS, in that it offers a complete body examination, but less sensitive and ten times more expensive, therefore unable to save many lives. Despite the disadvantages compared to the 3D-CBS, the authors of the EXPLORER project are among those who have the power to assign taxpayer money and thus receive funding.
This proves that today credibility in science is not derived from valuable inventions and scientific merit but from the power to have some control over taxpayer money, receiving funding regardless of the usefulness of the project/idea to society and/or to the advancement in science.
Funding allows some projects to be built which justifies reviewers to accept abstracts (e.g. 17 from Levin), and these abstracts increase their credentials to receive more funding, which justifies the approval of more papersâ€¦, and so on. All this self-approving promotion process among a circle of friends avoids the real evaluations on scientific merit that would come from an open workshop where scientists could question each other publicly.
Implicit admission that Crosettoâ€™s 3D-CBS was the solution that could have saved millions of lives but is unfunded, while the EXPLORER that cannot save many lives, is less sensitive and 10 times as expensive, is funded
These past 15 years Crosettoâ€™s approaches, claims, calculations and hardware verification are turning out to be correct and those who opposed him have had to recant explicitly or implicitly by results provided by third parties or by results obtained by the same individual who obstructed Crosetto after he pointed out their misconceptions and his inventions. For over ten years Crosettoâ€™s proposals to NIH, were rejected by NIH reviewers who were requesting an improvement to PET spatial resolution and the â€śBlock Detectorâ€ť which would have reduced sensitivity. These rejections were proven to be a mistake when PET sensitivity was shown to be more important than PET spatial resolution and after the superiority of Crosettoâ€™s 3D-Flow invention and his other related inventions in the simplified detector assembly, real-time algorithm, etc., made the â€śBlock Detectorâ€ť concept obsolete. Steve DeRenzo had written a negative review of Crosettoâ€™s technical-scientific in the year 2000, but his claim that in order to improve PET efficiency, crystal detectors should be improved and there was no need to improve the electronics, was proven wrong by many articles and projects built by third parties after DeRenzoâ€™s review. Even Siemens, a leader in this industry, had to recant their statements after Crosetto had a one day meeting with the President of Siemens Nuclear Medicine and Director of PET, followed by conference calls with Siemens Head of Research and Chief of electronics. They stated that it was impossible to improve PET efficiency by improving the electronics, and there was no need anyway. Five years after the meeting, Siemens recanted all their statements when they published on their website they increased PET efficiency by 70% by improving the electronics. Most recently, the same persons who obstructed Crosettoâ€™s ultrasensitive, low cost 3D-CBS technology are proposing and receiving taxpayer money to build the EXPLORER which is less sensitive, ten times more expensive and cannot save many lives.
Challenging problem in HEP defined at the 1990 ECFA workshop for LHC that will affect this Research for the next 25 years
The second example relates to the biggest and most expensive experiment in the history of the planet, the LHC at CERN. The detector requirements for the next 25-30 years for the â€śdiscovery potentialâ€ť from future high-luminosity colliders were defined at the ECFA (European Committee for Future Accelerators) workshop for LHC on October 4-9 1990 in Aachen, Germany The CERN Atlas and CMS experiments, and the other modern experiments, have the task to identify good events from thousands of signals arriving from the detector at over 600 million events per second. The events cannot be stored because in one day they would fill all the hard drives on the planet. The key unit responsible for selecting the events which appear promising and rejecting the rest is called the Level-1 Trigger unit. If it is not working properly or poorly designed, the remaining electronics and apparatus costing billions of dollars and the over 10,000 scientists will be analyzing useless data unlikely to contain the expected new particle.
The 1992 solution to the challenging LHC problem and any new experiment: the 3D-Flow programmable OPRT system for Level-1 Trigger beyond imagination of future science
In 1992, when these requirements were set for experiments at the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) and the Large Hadron Collider, Crosetto invented a solution, the 3D-Flow architecture, which would allow scientists to execute their desired programmable object pattern recognition algorithm (OPRT) at the Level-1 Trigger. The 3D-Flow basic invention was formally recognized in 1993 by a major international review at FERMIlab, presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Crosetto targeted his new concept to standard cell technology using Synopsys tools and to three FPGA technologies (Altera, Xilinx and ORCA), proving his invention to be technology-independent, even building the system in modular hardware boards using Altera FPGAs. The technology-independent approach of the 3D-Flow system for any application with a volume of electronic channels, data acquisition rate, the complexity of the real-time algorithm to be executed and the available budget will always have an advantage over any existing technology at the time the application is built. This feature makes the 3D-Flow more cost-effective compared to the proposed FPGA as defined in the 2013 technical design reports for the Level-1 Trigger upgrades for CERN Atlas and CMS experiments.
Unethical scientists in HEP powered by taxpayer money crushed scientific evidence. These inconsistencies could be resolved with transparency in science in public workshops
Although Crosettoâ€™s idea (invention) was clearly superior, he did not have the power to access the taxpayer money allocated to fund innovations in science for benefitting humanity, while scientists who have this power did not have a good idea, and even prevented Crosetto from receiving funds or presenting his idea at conferences. This was the case when Wesley Smith and Peter Sharp prevented Crosetto from participating at the 1998 Snowmass workshop on electronics for LHC experiments, because they argued that his invention was not adopted by Atlas or CMS (meaning he did not have the power to access taxpayer money and bring to the experiment a piece of equipment). Thereafter, Crosetto has been prevented from presenting his innovations at most of the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conferences.
The power of these scientists and leaders who have control of taxpayer money is so strong that they can ignore scientific merit and evidence of scientific inconsistencies that DO NOT ADD UP. The latest rejections of Crosettoâ€™s Abstract and proposal for a workshop at the 2014 IEEE-NSS Conference by their Chair and Deputy Chair Ingrid Gregor and Adam Bernstein, were made without any supporting scientific arguments, and in the case of the proposed public workshop, they denied transparency in science. These are examples of the power they receive from having taxpayers money at their disposal when there is no request for accountability.
For all these reasons, supporting TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE needs to be extended to the general public with help from the media and must be requested by funding agencies as a condition to receive funding.
Claims & Results in HEP do not ADD UP. Implicit admission that Crosettoâ€™s 3D-Flow OPTR was the choice that was missed when TT was chosen resulting in $50 Billion wasted
The results presented here DO NOT ADD UP.
a) The LHC collider accelerator generated in 2012-2013, approximately 100,000 collisions with Higgs boson like characteristics and Atlas and CMS claim to have captured just 40 each. This cannot be called efficient.
b) Atlas and CMS experiments measured independently two different values (125.3 GeV and 126.5 GeV) for the same phenomenon in nature, which is not possible. This proves that one or both of the two experiments are faulty, incapable of capturing and accurately measuring the characteristics of new particles.
c) Atlas and CMS leaders state in their 2013 documents for the upgrade of their experiments and at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference that the electronics for the trigger systems need to be replaced and plan to implement an â€śobject pattern recognitionâ€ť Level-1 Trigger (which Crosetto made available with his 3D-Flow-OPRT invention in 1992 but was prevented from presenting at conferences and remains unfunded). This is an implicit admission that the current trigger systems including the â€śThreshold Triggerâ€ť (TT) are inadequate.
d) Many scientists in the movie â€śParticle Feverâ€ť and even the same scientists from Atlas and CMS experiments state in public seminars that they need to acquire more data in 2015-16, before making a stronger statement regarding the nature of the new found particle.
e) The Nobel Prize should have been assigned to the individuals who most contributed to the construction and running of the LHC accelerator and not mention the Atlas and CMS experiments that have inadequate detectors for capturing and measuring new particles.
The damage to society from corruption in science is enormous; in addition to the enormous waste of money, the public who place their trust in the honesty, integrity and ethics of scientist have been deceived. Recently, Crosetto participated via web in a few webinars by U.S. Government Agencies (NIH and DOE) presenting opportunities to receive funding for innovative projects. On July 22, 2014, Crosetto attended a seminar of this type in person and had a meeting with NIH Program Manager, Greg Evans after the seminar. Crosetto presented him with a 5â€ť stack of proposals he had submitted to the NIH over nine years and asked for the possibility to address scientific issues with scientists to discuss inconsistences that DO NOT ADD UP. Evansâ€™ recommendation was the same as other NIH employees had recommended in the past – to submit a new application, as the scientific reviewers, he claimed, now have less weight. This cannot reassure taxpayers who need more scientific accountability to eliminate corruption in science.
Allowing TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE in PUBLIC, OPEN WORHSHPS can resolve inconsistencies with the most deadly and costly calamity, CANCER, and many other problems, that DO NOT ADD UP
CANCER: 6.5 million premature deaths/year, at a cost of $1.4 trillion/year:
1. For 68 years we have known that early detection can avoid over 50% of cancer deaths, but the cost of treating late detection have increased 100 times while reduction of cancer mortality is only 5%.
2. Data reveal NO difference in the mortality rate from cancer in countries which spend or do NOT spend money in an effort to eliminate cancer.
3. Taxpayer and donation money are being used to fund projects which are known from the start are unable to reduce cancer deaths, and projects that would reduce cancer deaths, ARE NOT FUNDED.
4. The best imaging technique (PET) is based on particle detection measuring sensitivity, but articles and funding are approved to increase PET spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity.
5. A significant advance in early detection requires a breakthrough in particle detection, but the 3D-Flow-OPRT breakthrough has been ignored.
6. CERN-LHC must admit, 22 years after the invention of the 3D-Flow-OPRT, to having taken the wrong direction, wasting $50B. Now they are making the same mistake with FPGA, wasting an additional $30B.
7. Cancer leaders must admit, taking the wrong direction 14 years after the 3D-CBS was invented, resulting in needless loss of millions of lives and trillions of dollars. Now they will make the same mistake with the EXPLORER, which cannot save many lives due lower sensitivity and higher cost compared to 3D-CBS.
We hope that you will find in this letter sufficient evidence of inconsistencies that DO NOT ADD UP. Out of respect and fairness to taxpayers who have entrusted you with their money to support their interest, donâ€™t you think you owe it to them to STOP FUNDING scientists and projects for LHC and Medical Imaging which refuse TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE by not implementing public workshops where scientists can question each other.
Because in the past two decades the above data and facts prove that scientists have to recant their statements/approaches explicitly or implicitly regarding Crosettoâ€™s innovations, and because these innovations, if implemented, would have saved millions of lives and billions of dollars, we respectfully request that Crosetto be allowed to ask questions in public to scientists and leaders who spend taxpayer money and those responsible for the decision to spending an additional $30 billion on HEP over the next 10 years. We also respectfully request that he be allowed to ask pertinent questions in the interest of solving the cancer problem by reducing substantially the number of cancer deaths and avoiding doubling the deaths from cancer by 20 times as estimated by W.H.O.
Thank you for your consideration,
 It works like a water meter, an electrical meter, an anemometer, etc., measuring a unit (gallons of water, Watts, air flow, or counting signals received from the tumor marker) within a unit of time (months, hours, minutes or seconds).
 Or like asking a manufacturer of an electrical meter to improve the instrument to measure the size of the wires instead of the electricity consumption per hour.
 Beginning in 1996, Crosetto submitted requests for grants to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to improve PET sensitivity at the lowest possible cost per valid signal captured and his proposals (nine) were rejected with the request to improve PET spatial resolution instead. Crosetto explained that unless the instrument captured all possible signals from the tumor marker (current 5,000 PET capture approximately 1 out of 10,000 signals), the instrument could not measure the dimensions of small tumors. First one must capture all possible signals so that the radiation to the patient is kept at a minimum and also so the small tumors with minimum abnormal consumption of nutrient can be detected. Having achieved this first important goal, the best technique and algorithm can be used on the signals to improve spatial resolution.
 The 3D-CBS provides more accurate information about minimum abnormal biological processes, quantified with a ratio between the measured value and the standard value as shown in Figure. It is safe to the patient, requiring a radiation dose over 10 times less than the 1 mSv approved by the International Commission for Radiation Protection. The increased sensitivity and specificity of the 3D-CBS device makes it possible to have a more accurate staging of the disease, the identification of micro-metastasis, the precise measuring of the cancer activity, inflammation, infections, diabetes, Alzheimerâ€™s, heart and vascular diseases, etc. Its increased sensitivity opens the door to the discovery and development of new biomarkers that cannot be detected with the current inefficient PET, thus making their discovery difficult.
 Crosettoâ€™s correspondence with NIH leaders over ten years and submission of grant applications that were denied with no valid scientific reasons. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5YUY1Y3lYMU1CREk/edit?usp=sharing.
 In 1998, Crosetto, after receiving SBIR grants from the Department Of Energy (DOE) of approximately $1 million and not receiving grants from NIH, met the Director of the NIH-SBIR, Jo Ann Goodnight, asking for the possibility to address scientific issues with NIH scientists reviewing his proposals. However, Goodnight denied the dialogue between Crosetto and NIH reviewers on scientific issues and encouraged him to resubmit the proposal. All subsequent proposals were also rejected.
 It had been hoped that as the holder of the most powerful position in science in the world, after becoming aware of the scientific inconsistencies, he would finally support implementation of inventions that would advance science and humanity. Instead, what before could have been interpreted as incompetence became a clear sign of dishonesty, corruption and cover up of the scientific truth which would benefit humanity.
The three minutes of transparency in science that allowed Crosetto to ask Levin those questions should have been asked five years ago by the government agencies that funded Levinâ€™s project. This should have been the logical scientific course of events reassured by the fact that Levin approached Crosetto after his presentation offering to introduce him to the Chairman of the following yearâ€™s MIC conference and assuring Crosetto of his support for a workshop to address the issue.
 The three minute window of transparency in science which had allowed Crosetto to ask those 4 questions delayed the preparation of this yearâ€™s workshop and caused the announcements to be moved from its usual May to Sept. 30, 2014. Instead of approving Crosettoâ€™s abstracts, 17 abstracts from Levin were approved. Crosettoâ€™s only abstract, having the same title mentioned above was rejected together with his requests for workshops, proving that one more time dishonesty, corruption and cover up in science prevailed over transparency in science which would have allowed the scientific truth to emerge.
This shows that the audience of scientists who witnessed Levinâ€™s response to Crosettoâ€™s questions which clearly revealed evidence that Levinâ€™s presentation praising the merits of increased spatial resolution DID NOT ADD UP, did not have the will nor strength to pressure the organizers of the conference for the following year to implement scientific procedures, nor were they able to prevent funding agencies from funding Levinâ€™s project. A much stronger support for transparency in science and its scientific outcome is necessary in order to eliminate corruption, dishonesty and scientific cover ups. Physicists should explain improper â€śupgradesâ€ť and use of PET (which should be called â€śdegradesâ€ť when it lowers the sensitivity and increases costs), as one would explain that a wrench should not be used to drive nails and a hammer should not be used to loosen bolts. Although it is understandable for doctors, drug companies and those in the cancer business to know when a drug shrinks a tumor, and we can understand the desire for asking to measure a parameter that increases their sales, the fault lies with scientists who should provide their ethical and professional knowledge of which measuring technique is more suitable to accurately measure this parameter without putting patientsâ€™ health and lives at risk.
 A scientist can serve the interests of taxpayers by building a medical instrument like the 3D-CBS that can save lives with an effective early detection in all organs of the body with a single examination at an affordable cost. Industry has the task to massively distribute these devices and make a profit for the shareholders. A scientist cannot take orders from industry in improving PET spatial resolution because it increases sales of their drugs if by doing so it will cause a hazard to the patient in higher radiation, higher examination cost, and by missing the detection of small tumors at a stage when they are curable or easily removed.
 Crosettoâ€™s innovative 3D-Flow architecture for the First Level Trigger summarized in one page https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5UlpTLXhQQjFrZDg/view?usp=sharing
 Recognition of innovations made by Crosetto at a major international scientific review requested by the Director of the Supercollider (also Director of FERMILab), held at Fermilab on Dec. 14, 1993 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5YUdqVll4ZkVkWTA/view?usp=sharing
 Original document reporting in detail how the SSC Deputy Director implements directives from SSC Director, charging Andy Lankford to draft the charges to reviewers of Crosettoâ€™s 3D-Flow innovation. SSC would have to decide at which level Crosettoâ€™s invention should be supported during the SSC closeout. Lankford wrote the original document and charged Joel Butler to organize an indepth review. Crosetto’s innovation was considered valuable and received maximum support during the SSC closeout to allow Crosetto to: â€śâ€¦complete the current development and leave the project in a state where it could be continuedâ€¦â€ť Crosetto not only documented his work but he also built, in part at his own expense, the hardware proving feasibility of his innovative concept. However, after 18 years he did not receive funding to build a full system that would benefit HEP and later cancer patients.
 Recognition of the value of Crosettoâ€™s basic invention in this field that he presented in 1992 within 35 days at three international conferences in Europe, Annecy and the U.S. Corpus Christi, TX, Orlando, FL, and published in the prestigious scientific journals: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research and IEEE-NSS-MIC. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5NVBkWVVOcmpMVm8/view?usp=sharing
 Crosetto, D.: 45-page peer-review article published in NIM in 1999. Title: “Base Implementation of the LHCb Trigger Level-0 with the 3D-Flow system,” in Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Sec A, vol. 436 (1999), p.341-385.Part 1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5NlVSWHhoTl9jZXc/view?usp=sharing Part 2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5ZG82dWRlUVVPWXc/view?usp=sharing
 Their power is stronger than the transparency in science chosen by Crosettoâ€™s former boss at the SSC, Jim Siegrist, when he first invented the 3D-Flow system.
It is stronger than the transparency in science adopted by the Director of the SSC who requested a public major public scientific review of Crosettoâ€™s invention.
It is stronger than the outcome of the panel of world experts from this major public scientific review held at FERMILab and by several other international public scientific reviews.
It is stronger than all the letters of recognition Crosetto received from top scientists and experts in the field, from group leaders at FERMILab, from CERN ECP Division leader, Pier Giorgio Innocenti, who invited Crosetto to give seminars at CERN, and many others.
It is stronger than the fact that Crosettoâ€™s invention was first adopted by GEM experiment at SSC and later by the LHCb experiment, but in the LHCb case it was dropped not because there was a better solution but because other scientists had access to taxpayer money that Crosetto did not. (The SSC experiment was cancelled in 1993 by an Act of U.S. Congress for lack of funding).
In addition, it is stronger than any scientific inconsistencies as those listed below.
 Evansâ€™ recommendation was the same as other NIH employees had recommended in the past – to submit a new application. He claimed that now the review process used to assign grants had changed for the better. Â Â Â Crosetto hoped that finally he would be able to discuss technical-scientific issues with some experts, but when he asked Evans for details on the changes in the review process, Evans replied, believing his answer would reassure Crosetto, that the scientific reviewers no longer have the same weight as in the past. Instead, Crosetto was hoping to hear that reviewers would have more accountability so that more weight would be given to scientific evidence. With power now moving away from science and towards managers, who have even less ability to understand technological breakthroughs than scientific reviewers, it is like going from the frying pan into the fire.