Dear President Obama,
158,889,600 people died from cancer from when my invention was crushed (11,769,600 were Americans).
It’s just common sense: Before giving anyone a slice of NCI’s annual $6 billion of taxpayer money to eradicate cancer one should determine: What, When, and How they will provide taxpayers a return in cancer death and cost reduction by asking:
- What is the expected reduction in cancer deaths (6 years and 10 years from funding) your project/approach can provide when measured on a sample population?
- When can the first results be expected?
- How much will your project cost to develop? How much are the operating costs?
- How does it compare to other worthy projects to reduce cancer death and cost?
- Is there a link to support the analytical and scientific evidence of your claims?
On 5/31/16 you wrote:
“Dario – When I look back over the past seven years, so much of what we fought for we did because it was common sense”.
Forgive me if I bring your attention to how I fought for 15 years for common sense to benefit everyone on both sides of the aisle 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 TRANSPARENCY in PUBLIC procedures and answering those 5 common sense questions 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.
It is common sense to implement PUBLIC competitions in the Olympics, American Idol, America’s got Talent, Shark Tank, etc., where professionals in different fields, also in business, do not fear putting their reputations at stake by judging according to their professional knowledge complying with rules.
Why then is it that scientists who need to prove their knowledge in understanding science have the privilege to split taxpayer money among themselves behind closed doors without accountability?