The Future is in Our Hands
Blog
Information, Awareness, Prevention / United to End Cancer

DOE email reveals procedure to assign taxpayer money to research projects is corrupt. This corruption and other inconsistencies when assigning taxpayer and donation money to research projects is not limited to DOE but is common in other organizations and is detrimental to us all. Please take action to help reform the current anonymous peer-review system conducted among a circle of friends of scientists meeting behind closed doors to split taxpayer and donation money without addressing technical issues/arguments in a public meeting with ethical scientists and applicants, which would reveal the advantages/benefits of a project/idea/invention compared to others.

Summary: 160,007,400 people have died from cancer (one every 4 seconds) since Crosetto’s invention was crushed. It is a crime to deny an analytical scientific discussion that would prevent the loss of millions of deaths and trillions of dollars.

This document in PDF is available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5SEVjUERwUHk5cGM/view?usp=sharing

August 9, 2016

To:

Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz

President Barack Obama,

Vice-President Joe Biden,

Director of the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy, Dr. Cherry Murray

Deputy Director for Science Programs, U.S. Department of Energy, Dr. Patricia Dehmer

Director of the Office of Science for High Energy Physics, U.S. Department of Energy, Dr. James Siegrist,

Director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Francis Collins

Director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI), Dr. Lowy Douglas,

Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Michael Laurer

CEO of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) in U.K., Dr. John Womersley

Chief Executive of the U.K. National Health Service (NHS), Dr. Simon Stevens

To the members of the Board of Directors of IEEE, the world’s largest technical professional organization of over 400,000 members, dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity

cc. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Le Monde, CBS 60 minute, and social media.

 

Research scientist Dario Crosetto worked on leading edge physics experiments at the world’s largest laboratories (CERN, SSC, FERMILAB and BNL), won the Leonardo da Vinci Prize for his invention for early cancer detection, has been awarded one million dollars in government grants, was awarded $10,000 for the best Business Plan reviewed by Venture Capitalists in a start-up competition, and had his inventions endorsed by top scientists and experts in the field (51-55 & 75-83).  The superiority in efficiency of his medical imaging invention made Siemens take a second look at their PET (Positron Emission Tomography) and had to agree that the electronics could be improved after first insisting the efficiency of their electronics had reached the limit. His basic invention was recognized valuable by a major public scientific review held at FERMILAB (pp. 56-74); this and subsequent inventions have been endorsed in several reviews including most notably Silvio Turrini, co-inventor in 1993 of the first 300MHz 115W 32b Bipolar ECL Microprocessor and Jerry Merryman, co-inventor with Nobel Prize winner Jack Kilby of the pocket calculator.

Crosetto has also proved the concepts of his inventions feasible and functional in hardware.

 

Crosetto’s most recent inventions 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithms) and the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) are summarized in three abstracts/summaries submitted to the 2016 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference. The 3D-Flow OPRA is a revolutionary electronic instrument for multiple applications: finding and accurately measuring all characteristics of new subatomic particles like the Higgs boson-like particle, maintaining security (fighting terrorism), and when used in applications for medical imaging devices such as the 3D-CBS, saving millions of lives with an effective early cancer detection and reducing healthcare costs. This is because his 3D-CBS invention is hundreds of times more efficient and accurate than the over 6,000 existing PET (Positron Emission Tomography) devices currently in use, thus enabling an effective early detection, requiring less than 1/50 the radiation, at a lower examination cost. Its single four-minute examination which covers all organs of the body means that individual screenings on specific parts of the body like mammograms, PAP-tests, colonoscopies and PSAs will not be necessary.

 

Beginning May 5, 2015, the Director of the Office of High Energy Physics (HEP) at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Dr. Jim Siegrist, who was Crosetto’s former supervisor when they both worked at the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) and knew the value of Crosetto’s invention, solicited him verbally and in writing (last in writing on Dec. 3rd, 2015) on several occasions between May and December 2015 (pp. 118-125) to formally submit a proposal of his inventions to Dr. Glen Crawford, Division Director of Research and Technology of the Office of HEP of DOE, and provide the ingredients for a compelling case for him to give a presentation at DOE.

 

Crosetto provided the ingredients for a compelling case of his 3D-Flow OPRA invention on September 10, 2015, showing a staggering performance improvement over the latest Level-1 Trigger funded by DOE. Next, he worked hard to verify the feasibility of his inventions with current technology by discussing his invention for four months with several reputable companies who prepared 59 quotes proving the feasibility of an 8,192-channel Level-1 Trigger for LHC experiments in 9 electronic data processing 3D-Flow OPRA boards housed in one crate, capable of executing with zero dead-time experimenters’ complex programmable algorithms. Crosetto’s system can replace at 1/1000 the cost the CMS Level-1 Trigger system made of 4,000 boards housed in hundreds of crates or the most recent SWATCH Level-1 Trigger made of 100 boards presented on June 6, 2016, at the IEEE-RT2016 Conference. Surprisingly, Dr. Helmut Marsiske, Director of Detector R&D at the Office of Science of the DOE, stated during a phone conversation with Crosetto on November 16, 2015, that they were close to a Level-1 Trigger system with zero dead-time and was not aware of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention that solved this problem in 1993. This was recognized in the written report dated January 31, 1994 of the formal, official scientific review (which was paid by DOE) of Crosetto’s invention held at FERMILAB on December 14, 1993.

 

Crosetto then submitted a formal proposal of his new 3D-Flow OPRA invention (see pp. 1-36, and  pp. 125-271) to DOE on December 22, 2015, whose review was assigned to Dr. Glen Crawford.

 

After Crosetto was informed on May 16, 2016, by an executive officer of the Director’s Office of Science, Dr. Cherry Murray that DOE staff who were conducting the review of his proposal were accusing him of refusing to provide material they requested and claimed that he was being uncooperative, Crosetto realized he was trapped in a rigged review of his invention and immediately withdrew his proposal. Realizing that perhaps there was a miscommunication problem and because Crosetto received an email from Dr. Crawford that he could not talk with applicants while a proposal was under review, the most logical action Crosetto could do was to withdraw the proposal, communicate with DOE staff to clear all miscommunications, explain the advantages of his invention and resubmit the proposal as he stated in his withdrawal letter. However, Crosetto’s withdrawal disrupted Glen Dr. Crawford who was in charge of the review. Dr. Crawford reacted by generating an email on May 19, 2016, that revealed a) that Dr. Crawford was in fact the one not being cooperative as he did not want to receive or analyze supporting material from Crosetto which would prove the feasibility of his proposal/invention/project, confirming that his and his colleagues’ accusations to Crosetto were false. b) his inconsistent contradictory statements revealed some of the corruption in assigning taxpayer money to research projects and his clear intention to crush Crosetto’s invention without “ever” providing a chance of a fair review, and c) essentially incriminated himself.  Although Dr. Crawford gives seminars around the Nation where he solicits applicants (in his slide 20) to send emails, to call, and to have one-on-one meetings with DOE Program Managers like himself who assign research funds using taxpayer money (he is listed as a contact on page 32 of the DOE solicitation DE-FOA-0001414), these past two years Dr. Crawford has not complied with his responsibility by even once answering any of Crosetto’s technical emails or setting up a phone call even when not under review and his colleagues referred him to Crosetto as the person responsible at DOE in this field and copied him in their emails. He has never asked questions on what he does not understand or what he believes is not feasible in the 59 quotes from reputable companies.

 

################# Dr. Crawford’s 8-line email ####################

  1. We will honor your request to withdraw application #0000222704 as a matter of professional courtesy.
  2. The withdrawal will be made effective upon the completion of the technical merit review you consented to by submitting the application.
  3. We plan to take no action on this application: it will neither be declined nor recommended for award.
  4. All current and future funding opportunities will be published on our website and the Government-wide portal at www.Grants.gov.
  5. In the interest of fair competition, we do not meet with potential applicants to discuss the details of potential applications:
  6. our processes are described in each Funding Opportunity Announcement.
  7. The work described in your application and in your correspondence is not technically sound and feasible, as required by 10 CFR 605.10.
  8. Any further submissions of substantially the same work will be declined without review.

Sincerely, Glen Crawford glen.crawford@science.doe.gov. Director, Research and Technology Division. Office of High Energy Physics. Phone 301 903 4829

################### end Dr. Crawford email ##########################

 

This is Dr. Crawford’s technique to bypass any accountability and any DOE rule, to fund the projects he likes, crush innovations and waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money. In his email, Dr. Crawford reveals the path of abuse of power, stating one thing and the opposite in the next or following lines, inventing and/or referring to non-existent DOE rules serving his plan of corruption, demonstrating that if an innovation conflicts with his own plans or those of his circle of friends, it can never be funded at DOE.

 

  • Line 7: “The work described…” is an evaluation based on personal opinion as Dr. Crawford took no interest in understanding Crosetto’s invention/proposal with calculations or asking questions of Crosetto or the top professionals who wrote the 59 quotes. This statement contradicts what he stated in line 3: “We plan to take no action…”; it is inconsistent with the fact that he writes this evaluation on May 19 when the review is not completed as he stated in line 2: “The withdrawal will be made…” and its completion was confirmed on May 31 when Crosetto received a message that his proposal was withdrawn. Nevertheless, Dr. Crawford wrote a rejection “…is not technically sound and feasible” before the review was completed. Rule 10 CFR 605.10. lists requirements that Crosetto’s proposal proves to satisfy. Following are the 10 CFR 605.10 requirements:

DOE shall evaluate new and renewal applications based on the following criteria which are listed in descending order of importance:

(1) Scientific and/or technical merit or the educational benefits of the project; (The scientific merits to advance science and benefits to humanity of Crosetto’s inventions have been recognized in several PUBLIC scientific reviews)

(2) Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach; (Crosetto’s 3D-Flow OPRA invention can replace in one crate of electronics providing a staggering performance improvement at 1/1000 the cost of hundreds of crated of electronics funded by DOE for the Level-1 Trigger at High Energy Physics experiments)

(3) Competency of applicant’s personnel and adequacy of proposed resources; (Crosetto’s competence has been proven in scientific articles, in public scientific reviews and endorsed by many letters of top experts in the field (51-55 & 75-83). Outsourcing the construction of the ASIC, electronic boards, cables and other components which will be assembled by a team of 12 professionals, 10 of whom will be hired on a competitive basis, and purchasing new instrumentation integrating the one already in house will assure adequacy of the proposed resources)

(4) Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget; and (The cost of the components outsourced to companies at an average cost of the labor of $110/hours on a competitive basis with at least two quotes for each component, the cost of the new instrumentation, travel and all items specified in DE-FOA-0001414 solicitation (227), including the five-year salary for a team of 12 people at an average cost of $38/hour, totally to $13.4 million is reasonable and appropriate for developing, building and testing an ASIC, a hardware simulator with the functionality in generating signals similar to a $50 billion LHC apparatus and two Level-1 Trigger systems one in VXI and the other in VME crate which could also be used for three 3D-CBS units, each with 8,192 electronic channels with 32-bits per channel at 40MHz, capable of executing with zero dead-time experimenters’ complex programmable Level-1 Trigger algorithms in real time). Additional Level-1 Trigger systems for other HEP experiments would cost approximately $100,000 per unit.

(5) Other appropriate factors established and set forth by ER in a notice of availability or in a specific solicitation.” (No other requests were made by DOE to Crosetto).

  • Line 2: “The withdrawal will be made effective upon the completion of the technical merit review …”, is contradicting what was stated in line 1: “We will honor your request to withdraw application #0000222704”.  He continued with the review and did not execute the withdrawal immediately on May 17 as Crosetto was told by several DOE officers, including Procurement Director, Dr. Patricia Schuneman, Grant Analyst, Dr. Kimberlie Laing, and Contracting Officer, Dr. Jason Dozier would happen. It would sound discriminatory to refuse to review in the future a proposal which has been withdrawn and the review was never completed as stated on line 8: “Any further submissions of substantially the same work will be declined without review”.
  • Line 5: “…we do not meet with potential” prohibits any future analytical, scientific discussion of the project based on calculations and scientific evidence with the applicant although he continues to advertise during seminars (in his slide 20) delivered to the Nation and in the instructions to submit the application for a grant, to sign up for one-on-one meetings, write emails and call DOE Program Managers like himself (he is listed as a contact on page 32 of the DOE solicitation DE-FOA-0001414).
  • Line 8: “Any further submissions…” He prohibits any resubmission of Crosetto’s application that was never evaluated because it was withdrawn. This is really crushing an invention “forever” without ever having an analytical discussion, without working through calculations, scientific evidence and comparison with other projects.

 

When Crosetto submitted on June 20, 2016, an official request (http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1745) for an explanation of Dr. Crawford’s email and other inconsistences to the office of the Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz, it was assigned case No. EXEC2016003098 on July 8, 2016, and it specified that Crosetto should contact Dr. Jim Siegrist by phone and/or by email, providing both.

 

However, facing irrefutable evidence of corruption at DOE in assigning taxpayer money to research projects, the Director of the Office of DOE-HEP, Dr. Jim Siegrist, called on the Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz, to speak up with the statement: “I am not authorized to speak for the Secretary’s Office”. Crosetto has experienced inconsistencies in the past of DOE employees not addressing technical issues with technical justification (pp. 104-117) and denying funding by ignoring emails or legitimate requests, and was hesitant to submit a formal proposal which would involve taking the time of many engineers at several companies for four months to discuss his invention with them to prepare the 59 quotes. However, Dr. Siegriest reassured Crosetto that this time he would be around for a while and the dialogue on technical issues with his staff like Dr. Crawford in charge of the Division of Research Technology would not stop. Instead, it never started, not before the submission, during the submission, nor after the submission, and Siegrist promised Crosetto could give a presentation of his invention at DOE, first planned for July 2015, then August 2015, also that never happened.

 

So the ball bounced back to the Office of the Secretary of Energy, Dr. Moniz.  Meanwhile, to avoid addressing this issue of corruption, Dr. Crawford and his Office of Science provided false information to DOE Security who intimidated and threatened(?) Crosetto over the phone and in an email which states: “…to cease and desist with all forms of communication to employees, contractors and representatives of the department” (Department of Energy – DOE).

 

Crosetto has already made many sacrifices to defend science, and to prevent wastage of taxpayer money. While being deprived of the benefits of his inventions, he is willing to stand up against injustice and to fix corruption; however, taking an example from Galileo who recanted science when the Church threaten to chop off his head if he continued to state that the earth was not the center of the universe, Crosetto immediately wrote an email to DOE asking: “Please could you let me know the consequences I will encounter if I do not follow your order below?” and is awaiting their reply to assess how far he can state in this era the scientific truth listed below.

 

In previous days, Crosetto exercised all the tools made available from a democratic system. On July 26, 2016, he informed the DOE Inspector General to investigate and address the inconsistencies in Dr. Crawford’s email and DOE’s actions (see http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1873). On July 29, 2016, he submitted a request to the DOE Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for all internal documents at DOE which mention his name, the 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS projects, his proposal, etc. (see http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1875)

 

If these democratic tools are working properly, leaders who are detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change their mind when presented with compelling arguments should act before Dr. Crawford’s violations of the rule of law do further damage. Leaders should compare any technical justifications or scientific calculations made by Dr. Crawford and his reviewers leading to their statement that Crosetto’s project “is not technically sound and feasible” which will result from the FOIA enquiry with Crosetto’s calculations, feasibility and functionality proofs described in documents, articles, and those of experts who endorsed Crosetto’s inventions these past two decades (51-55 & 75-83) as well as the professionals who wrote the recent 59 quotes proving Crosetto’s 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS feasible, more performant and more cost-effective than competitive systems, thus refuting line 7 of Dr. Crawford’s email.

 

Dr. Crawford should realize that his email response and his action to silence Crosetto do not comply with the job description he freely signed up for when he took office and should therefore resign from his position to avoid embarrassing the DOE.

 

How far can we state the scientific truth and present innovative ideas in this era to leaders holding positions of responsibility to make a better world without being silenced or threatened, but rather address them and take action to maximize benefits to humanity?

 

Examples of scientific truths that are generating intimidations/threats rather than taking action to correct errors and support remedies:

 

  1. The DOE funded Wesley Smith’s Level-1 Trigger for over $50 million to build a 4,000 electronic data processing board system costing over $100 million which failed to find particles with characteristics defined by theoretical physicists and had to be discarded, while DOE has known since 1993 of the existence of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow system officially recognized and approved to solve the problem at a fraction of the cost. It is undeniable that out of approximately 100,000 Higgs boson-like particles generated by LHC collider the 40 announced on July 4, 2012, were found after analyzing trillions of events recorded casually and not for merit of the Level-1 Trigger.

 

  1. The National Institute of Health (NIH) funded PET “block detector” projects to Craig Levine and several others for millions of dollars which are less efficient and more expensive than current PET (Positron Emission Tomography) that have not contributed and could never contribute to the reduction of cancer deaths; while for ten years the NIH rejected ten proposals from Crosetto for his breakthrough 3D-CBS technology, hundreds of times more efficient than the over 6,000 existing PET devices, and would have enabled an effective early detection at a very low radiation and low examination cost potentially saving millions of lives and reducing healthcare costs. The 3D-CBS can provide this with a single four-minute examination covering all organs of the body, and therefore render individual screenings on specific parts of the body like mammograms, PAP-tests, colonoscopies and PSAs unnecessary.

 

During the past 20 years, instead of answering with technical-scientific justifications related to his inventions, Crosetto has been obstructed, boycotted, silenced, intimidated and threatened with several actions, here are a few: a) not funding his inventions to completion after he proved feasibility, functionality and technological advantages, b) rejecting his articles without providing scientific reasons, c) taking away the microphone while he was asking legitimate, pertinent scientific questions to keynote speakers at conferences, d) preventing him from presenting his 3D-Flow invention at the Workshop on Electronics for LHC experiment at Snowmass, Colorado, e) rejecting his proposals for workshops where young and senior scientists could present their ideas/projects and question each other for hours and not two minutes after a talk that many times falls under the category of advertisement rather than a presentation at a scientific forum, f) rejecting his request for funding without providing scientific evidence supported by calculations and comparison to other more cost-effective systems and g) crushing his inventions by ignoring them or with false accusations as Dr. Crawford did.

 

The scientific truth can never emerge under the current anonymous peer-review system conducted among a circle of friends of scientists meeting behind closed doors to split taxpayer and donation money.

 

In the interest of the public, journalists are invited to disseminate this letter and support the request for a public scientific review of Crosetto’s inventions to render justice to competent professionals, taxpayers and cancer patients and remove corruption that is detrimental to us all.

 

President of the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

900 Hideaway Pl. – DeSoto, TX 75115 – USA –

Tel. 972-223-2904 – Email: United To End Cancer <volunteers@u2ec.org> or info@crosettofoundation.org

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Site Overview
Please visit our
Site Overview for help in navigating the site.
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Upcoming Events
October 2020
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
September 28, 2020 September 29, 2020 September 30, 2020 October 1, 2020 October 2, 2020 October 3, 2020 October 4, 2020
October 5, 2020 October 6, 2020 October 7, 2020 October 8, 2020 October 9, 2020 October 10, 2020 October 11, 2020
October 12, 2020 October 13, 2020 October 14, 2020 October 15, 2020 October 16, 2020 October 17, 2020 October 18, 2020
October 19, 2020 October 20, 2020 October 21, 2020 October 22, 2020 October 23, 2020 October 24, 2020 October 25, 2020
October 26, 2020 October 27, 2020 October 28, 2020 October 29, 2020 October 30, 2020 October 31, 2020 November 1, 2020