Dear President Obama,
I received this email on 5/31/2016 from Barack Obama.
“Dario – When I look back over the past seven years, so much of what we fought for we did because it was common sense. …But… that kind of common sense isn’t all that common when it comes…”. Forgive me if I bring your attention to how I fought for 15 years for common sense and now you can be an important game-changer.You can set a few simple rules for government employees handling taxpayer money to be accountable by applying the common sense you wrote to me about in your letter dated 9/25/15 where analytical thinking is used when deciding which scientists, innovators, technologists receive the tools (grants) to benefit taxpayers and eliminate scientific corruption.
Simply: ENFORCE TRANSPARENCY IN SCIENCE by assigning taxpayer money to research projects after a PUBLIC scientific review process based on calculations, analytical and scientific evidence.
This will benefit taxpayers and cure the corruption in the scientific community by not nurturing the corrupted scientists, but nurturing projects that have been compared publicly with all others.
Here are two of many examples where NIH & DOE made bad funding choices causing the loss of millions of lives and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars when a common sense question could have revealed their inconsistency:
- Would a policeman be protected by a thin bullet-proof vest with holes like Swiss cheese? Then why did NIH fund Swiss-cheese like detector modules for cancer patients that cannot detect signals from tumor markers? For example: NIH grants R01 CA119056, R01 CA119056S1 (ARRA), R01 CA120474, and R01 EB011552 and DOE grant DESC0005290 which funded Craig Levin’s “block detector” with 1x1x1 mm3 crystals and many holes between the crystals that cannot capture the photons generated from the tumor markers. This NIH million $ cannot reduce cancer deaths but enabled him to be Chairman of the 2013 IEEE-MIC in which 16 of his articles were accepted by his circle of friends while rejecting my one article that would have saved millions of lives.
- Now NIH is funding the $15.5 million Explorer project whose cost, efficiency and scientific evidence show it cannot significantly reduce cancer deaths. Why is NIH funding a circle of friends who after rejecting my idea for 15 years, copied my idea and now propose a less efficient device costing 10 times my 3D-CBS technology?