Report of the unlawful actions of Glen Crawford, Division Director of the Research and Technology Division of the Office of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy for violating government rules and for abuse of power. The Media who serve the public interest should inform taxpayers about Crawford’s actions that have caused hundreds of millions of wasted tax-dollars and deprived them of the benefits from advancement in science and the benefits of the derived applications of my invention, including one that provides a superior early cancer detection able to save millions of lives.
See this letter in pdf format at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5b0FydURNeHRfSlE/view?usp=sharing.
June 20, 2016.
From: Dario Crosetto, President of the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths.
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,
The New York Times
CBS 60 minute, Dr. Scott Pelley, Dr. Kevin Tedesco
Subject: Glen Crawford’s actions have caused hundreds of millions of wasted tax-dollars and deprived taxpayers and humanity of the benefits from inventions that can save millions of lives
Dear Dr. Moniz, concerned leaders on how to best serve the citizens and professionals providing information in the public interest,
I would like to report the unlawful actions of Glen Crawford, Division Director of the Research and Technology Division of the Office of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy for violating government rules and for abuse of power because he referred to and applied a non-existent rule to deny his services and my legitimate request and covered up non-legitimate privileges from corrupt scientists who seek grants from DOE without following a fair scientific procedure.
The Media who serve the public interest should inform taxpayers about Crawford’s actions that have caused hundreds of millions of wasted dollars and deprived them of the benefits from advancement in science and the benefits of the derived applications of my invention, including one that provides a superior early cancer detection able to save millions of lives.
Crawford’s abuse of power even put his DOE colleagues in difficulty when they had to relay Crawford’s non-existent rule to me without being able to refer to any government report where this rule was written after my request on several occasions.
I respectfully request the name(s) of DOE Office of Science experts in particle detection handling taxpayer money with whom I can discuss the attached four slides: a) Two describing the CMS Level-1 Trigger by Wesley Smith consisting of 4,000 electronic data processing boards and the 100-board upgrade presented on June 6, 2016 at the RT2016 conference in Padova, Italy and b) Two slides plus relative documentation (see pp. 3-4), describing my 3D-Flow OPRA invention for the same and other applications, whose feasibility is supported by 59 quotes from reputable industries submitted in a proposal to DOE on December 22, 2015, whose concept is based on the 3D-Flow architecture recognized valuable and approved by a major PUBLIC scientific review paid for by DOE, held at Fermilab in 1993, and approved in 1995 with a partial $906,000 million in funding by DOE (but never funded to completion), which has been proven with my own money to be feasible and functional in FPGA hardware, and would replace the 4,000 electronic data processing boards in hundreds of crates with 9 boards in one crate with staggering performance improvement in discovering new particles at 1/1000 the cost of the Smith’s Trigger system.
Because my legitimate requests to the government in serving the interest of taxpayers have been snubbed and stonewalled by Glen Crawford at my every attempt to communicate directly with him, damaging millions of people, and inspired by the recent movies “The Man Who Knew Infinity” (Srinivasa Ramanujan), “The Imitation Game” (Alan Turing) “Castles in the Sky” (Robert Watson Watt), showing that in the past inventors had the possibility to present their inventions to government leaders, I respectfully request to present my 3D-Flow OPRA invention to the DOE experts in particle detection handling taxpayer money, so I can answer their questions and clear their concerns to accelerate the transfer of my invention to benefit humanity.
Instead of serving his leaders and taxpayers to identify the projects/inventions worthy of funding through an analytical procedure based on calculations and scientific evidence to maximize benefits to taxpayers and humanity, Crawford has crushed innovations, making this impossible:
- On May 6, 2015, his supervisor Jim Siegrist, who knew the value of my invention from the time we worked together at the Superconducting Super Collider, requested that Crawford send me the link to the DOE solicitation for a funding opportunity. Then for over seven months until December 22, 2015 when I submitted my proposal, Crawford never replied even once to any of my several requests by email or by phone to discuss my proposal. (See from the example at this link the difficulties to send to DOE documents relative to my 3D-Flow invention and its advantages compared to the projects funded by DOE. They claimed did not received it until I sent it via U.S. Post Office). Essentially, I was snubbed. It is difficult to believe that a government employee has so little respect for another that he would completely ignore legitimate emails and phone calls. I was led to believe that in order to give a presentation to DOE experts in particle physics handling taxpayer money and talk to my Program Manager I should submit a proposal.
- The day after submitting the proposal I received an email from PAMS (Portfolio Analysis and Management System) encouraging me to contact my Program Manager, Glen Crawford. Because Crawford had been completely ignoring my request for information in the interest of taxpayers, while his colleagues insisted this was his responsibility alone, I contacted PAMS asking if it was lawful to contact my Program Manager to address the problem of an NDA while my project was under review, and they confirmed it was OK even insisting that I contact him.
- Eventually, on April 29, 2016, I received an acknowledgment email from Crawford which stated: “Your proposal is currently under review. We cannot discuss pending proposals while they are under review.”
- However, a few days ago, I discovered that on August 4, 2015 during the pre-proposal phase while Crawford was not answering my emails or accepting my phone calls, he was advertising at the DFT meeting (see his slide 20) that potential applicants contact their Program Managers: “But Really, What Should I Write in My Proposal? Talk to your grant monitor and HEP program manager. Many are here this week. Many are scheduling time for 1-on-1’s”.
On May 10, 2016, I contacted Ms. Lauren Smith, an executive from the office of Dr. Cherry Murray, who holds a position two levels above Crawford, and enquired about my proposal. She told me she would get back with me but after six days I had heard nothing. On May 16, 2016,, I called her back and she told me she had heard about me, how I had been uncooperative with reviewers by not providing the “equipment”, “test equipment” they had asked for. This statement by Ms. Smith made no sense to me as I had received no contact whatsoever from the reviewers and just a few days earlier I had spoken with Jim Siegrist who assured me that I did not miss any questions from DOE application, and that Crawford who was conducting the review did not ask me anything, and that if they needed something he would contact me.
Because the accusations reported by Ms. Lauren Smith were totally untrue, and realizing I was trapped in a rigged review system that needed some sort of communication to clarify the miscommunications and misunderstandings, I immediately asked that my proposal be withdrawn so I could talk to my Program Manager to clarify any misunderstandings and resubmit my proposal. I felt I needed to take this drastic measure because I had received that one email from Crawford stating the rule that there could be no discussion of pending proposals while they were under review.
- On May 17, I was assured by Ms. Kim Laing, the Grant Analyst at DOE and Jason Dozier, a DOE contract specialist, that I could easily withdraw my proposal. However, after Ms. Laing and I looked at the PAMS website over the phone neither she nor I was able to withdraw the proposal. Laing and Dozier then assured me they would contact Crawford to execute the withdrawal.
- On May 18, I received an email from Dozier telling me that he was not able to convince Crawford to withdraw my proposal without first completing the review. A subsequent email from him replying to my request for verification stated: “ At this time, per the information provided, the proposal could not be withdrawn”. When I asked Dozier where this rule was written, he could not find it anywhere in DOE documents. Apparently, this was an arbitrary rule from Crawford that is practiced when convenient to him.
- On May 19, I received an email from Crawford stating that he would withdraw my proposal, followed by a contradicting statement that he would continue to review it! (it was finally withdrawn on May 31 when I received another email from PAMS). His eight-line response (find full version below) is total nonsense because he states one thing and then says the opposite. For example, he states that no action would be taken, that it would neither be declined nor recommended for award, but then states that the “work described in your application and in your correspondence is not technically sound and feasible”.
This is false because it was recognized “sound” by the panel of a major scientific review held at FERMILab on December 14, 1993 (see pp. 56-74), and it was proven feasible in hardware in two modular electronic boards with 68 x 3D-Flow processor on each board implemented in FPGA and proven feasible in ASICs and new boards with over 1600 processors per board from 59 quotes from reputable companies.
If Crawford and his reviewers are incompetent or do not understand my invention they should say what they do not understand and ask questions. Because I was able to explain the concept of my invention to 12-18 year-old students, I am confident that I could explain it to Crawford and his reviewers if he had given me a chance to talk to them.
If Crawford’s reviewers want to reverse the professional evaluation my invention received publicly in the auditorium of FERMILAB during the 1993 major review of my invention which was based on an analytical study of my documents, calculations and scientific evidence, then to be fair he should organize a similar PUBLIC review, invite his reviewers to stand face-on behind their claims and invite professionals e.g. from Intel, Apple, Silicon Foundries, from electronic board design/manufacturing as the Director of the Supercollider requested in 1993 (Engineers from VAX-DIGITAL, from board designers, etc. were among the review panel of the FERMIlab review of my 3D-Flow invention) where the DOE paid for the review, and analyze the scientific evidence and calculations of his reviewers claiming that my work and invention are neither sound nor feasible.
His reviewers should listen to the explanations I provide, the calculations and scientific evidence provided by the companies who made the 59 quotes to build the components of my project and the calculations of other experts from industries who Crawford might appoint, and everything should go on record.
Meanwhile, the CMS Level-1 Trigger, costing over $100 million with 4,000 electronic data processor boards and built by scientists led by Wesley Smith who obstructed my 3D-Flow invention since 1993, needs to be trashed – as stated in the article by their colleagues on June 6, 2016, at the RT2016 in Padova, Italy because it does not have the capability to identify the Higgs boson-like particle.
This could have been avoided in 1994 and could be avoided again in 15 years from now if we have a meeting and compare analytically, with calculations and scientific evidence, the 100 new electronic data processing boards in FPGA with my 8 x 3D-Flow boards. Simple calculations and testimonials from ASIC and board manufacturers will show the superiority of my 3D-Flow system compared to the new 100 boards with FPGA, and this would avoid wasting fifteen years of work by 12,000 people at LHC and an additional $30 billion on LHC upgrades and experiments.
- An additional contradiction in Crawford words is when he states that the review was not complete, that it could not be stopped and would continue through the current “phase” of the review; however, at the same time he provides the evaluation that my work is not sound and is not feasible. I was notified that this review “phase” that he mentioned was concluded on May 31, 2016. How can he provide an evaluation on May 19 if he stated that he could not stop the review until the conclusion of the “phase”?
- In the same email he states: “In the interest of fair competition, we do not meet with potential applicants to discuss the details of potential applications: our processes are described in each Funding Opportunity Announcement.” This statement is contradicting what he stated in his slide 20 as mentioned above and is contradicting all the statements in the solicitations to contact via email and phone the Program Manager. How many lies and contradictions did Crawford write in a single email? He further writes: “Any further submissions of substantially the same work will be declined without review”.
- Besides all the untrue statements and contradictions in Crawford’s same email, I was not given a chance to address my project/invention analytically based on calculations and scientific evidence with anyone at DOE or to talk to my Program Manager Crawford before submitting my proposal, during the submission of my proposal, after withdrawing my proposal, and now, not only can I not address it with DOE experts handling taxpayer money analytically, based on calculations and scientific evidence, but Crawford states I cannot resubmit my withdrawn proposal anytime during my lifetime. I would like to know where this rule is stated for a proposal that has been withdrawn to stop a rigged review based on false claims that I was not providing the “equipment”, “test equipment” asked for by the reviewers.
- Is this a fair scientific review identifying projects/inventions serving our leaders and taxpayers, or is it a rigged system with a Program Manager that is the internal arm to the government to serve a circle of friend of corrupted scientists who want to serve their agenda of personal interests and power?
The GATE to DOE for transferring the benefits from inventions is controlled by Crawford. His violations to the DOE mission, rules, his abuse of power, are totally contrary to his job duties and responsibility toward taxpayers that pay his salary to serve their interest.
His group is not working to achieve the goals set by their leaders and are not working in the interest of the taxpayers. Besides never being able to communicate with Crawford following the protocol set by his position, the one time I was able to talk to one of Crawford’s group, Program Manager Helmut Marsiske, Director of Detector Research and Development in High Energy Physics, he stated that although my project/invention was within his field of applications and would greatly benefit it, he had only read the abstract of my long letter and was not going to read the content or listen to a presentation or discuss analytically and scientifically my project/invention.
During the same conversation I asked if current Level-1 Triggers had zero dead-time and Marsiske answered: “We are almost there!“ I then asked if he was aware that I invented the 3D-Flow architecture offering zero dead-time in 1992, which was reviewed at FERMIlab in 1993, partially funded by DOE with about $1 million in 1995 and 23 years later, after spending hundreds of million of dollars he was telling me that they were almost there! I informed him that I wrote several articles, the most important being a peer-review 45-page article published in 1999 in Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research (NIM).
Assigning taxpayer money without verifying the calculations, analyzing the scientific evidence has resulted in funding 4,000 electronics data processing boards in hundreds of crates without zero dead-time capability, while in my 45-page NIM article it was solved using 8 crates with zero dead-time and now it can be solved using one crate.
In addition to our phone conversation, Marsiske made it clear in two emails (the second on November 16, 2015, when he highlighted in yellow the statement below so I would not miss it, essentially saying that he is not interested in hearing about science) that he would refuse to listen to any analytical reasoning, calculations, scientific evidence with his words: “However, I have to reiterate my message to you as stated in my e-mail from November 11, 2015: I do not have time to evaluate detailed materials or receive visits or presentations from people seeking funding from the HEP instrumentation program that I am managing“ If analytical procedures based on calculations and scientific evidence are not followed, how is DOE assigning funds?
The lack of transparency in science and the rigged peer-review system to approve research projects for funding has caused a burden on taxpayers of hundreds of millions of wasted dollars and deprived them of benefits from the advancement in science and the benefits of the derived applications of Crosetto’s inventions, including the one to provide an effective early cancer detection that can save millions of lives.
A PUBLIC scientific review of my invention is urgently needed, similar to the one requested in 1993 by the Director of the Superconducting Super Collider where professionals in the field from academia, competing industries and research centers were invited to evaluate my invention. In the review panel for my new 3D-Flow OPRA invention, I would welcome professionals from competing companies such as Intel, Apple, manufacturers of ASICs, Electronic boards, systems, etc. and they can provide calculations that no one can object to because it is backed by their technology showing that my design and the performance of the technology I plan to use is sound and feasible. This will be a scientific evaluation countering the biased, unjust evaluation from Crawford when he described my application as unsound and not feasible.
Below I am providing information in the appendix that lists some of the adversities that I encountered to bring the benefits of my inventions to humanity.
There is enough scientific evidence for considering my 3D-Flow OPRA invention replacing 4,000 electronic data processing boards in hundreds of crates with 9 electronic data processing boards in one crate offering a staggering performance improvement, costing 1/1000 times less, saving hundreds of millions of tax-payers dollars with the potential to greatly advance science in many areas and saving millions of lives through a cost-effective early detection of cancer and many other diseases.
I trust your response will be favorable to the two requests.
- I respectfully request the name(s) of DOE Office of Science experts in particle detection handling taxpayer money with whom I can discuss the attached four slides
- I respectfully request to present my 3D-Flow OPRA invention to the DOE experts in particle detection handling taxpayer money
Dario Crosetto President of Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths
900 Hideaway Place
DeSoto, TX 75115
See the 3D-Flow OPRA project at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5MlpkbUpjbEIybUk/view?usp=sharing
At this link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5OEowTjZMN1J5dzA/view?usp=sharing) you can find three Abstracts and Summaries submitted on May 3rd, 2016, to the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in November 2016.
## List of all emails received from Glen Crawford
From: Crawford, Glen [mailto:Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 2:58 PM To: Dario Crosetto <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Laing, Kim <Kim.Laing@science.doe.gov>; email@example.com Subject: RE: Please acknowledge that my proposal DOE 0000222704 has been withdrawn
Dear Dr Crosetto,
Thank you for your letter.
We will honor your request to withdraw application #0000222704 as a matter of professional courtesy. The withdrawal will be made effective upon the completion of the technical merit review you consented to by submitting the application. We plan to take no action on this application: it will neither be declined nor recommended for award.
All current and future funding opportunities will be published on our website and the Government-wide portal at www.Grants.gov. In the interest of fair competition, we do not meet with potential applicants to discuss the details of potential applications: our processes are described in each Funding Opportunity Announcement.
The work described in your application and in your correspondence is not technically sound and feasible, as required by 10 CFR 605.10. Any further submissions of substantially the same work will be declined without review.
Glen Crawford firstname.lastname@example.org
Director, Research and Technology Division
Office of High Energy Physics
Phone 301 903 4829
Fax 301 903 2597
“Lack of skill dictates economy of style”
From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:53 AM To: Crawford, Glen <Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov> Cc: Laing, Kim <Kim.Laing@science.doe.gov>; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Please acknowledge that my proposal DOE 0000222704 has been withdrawn
Dear Dr. Crawford,
Please acknowledge that my request dated May 17, 2016 to withdraw my proposal DOE 0000222704 has been executed.
Following are a few excerpts from my previous communication on May 17, 2016:
“Please do not misinterpret my request, which has been since the beginning and continues to be that of discussing analytically and scientifically my idea/invention/project with DOE experts handling taxpayer money so that together we can best implement DOE’s mission to serve taxpayers in “catalyzing the transformative growth of basic applied scientific research”. This is achievable by implementing analytical procedures based on calculations and scientific evidence which are the basis for advancement in science and at the core of ethics, the responsibilities and mission of the scientific community.
Since being informed on May 6, 2016 by Jim Siegrist that this can only happen when my proposal is no longer under review, and after Ms. Lauren Smith made it clear on May 16, 2016 that she would not be addressing the two issues that I sent her on May 11, 2016 (see below) and then began telling me she had heard I had been uncooperative with reviewers by not providing “equipment”, “test equipment” they had asked for (completely untrue as I had not heard one word from the reviewers), I felt the most logical thing to do would be to withdraw my proposal to allow an analytical and scientific discussion supported by calculations and scientific evidence to happen, as stated by Jim Siegrist on May 6, 2016, and then resubmit the proposal.
To make it clear that I am asking for a hearing to discuss science and not asking to speed up the grant review process, I AM REQUESTING MY PROPOSAL DOE 0000222704 BE WITHDRAWN AND SWIFTLY SET UP A DATE AND TIME FOR A HEARING AS PROMISED BY SIEGRIST ON MAY 6, 2016, that I could address analytically and scientifically my new idea when my proposal will not be under review.
I am a scientist who wants to do my job by discussing analytically and scientifically ideas, inventions, projects that most benefit humanity. Therefore, I am respectfully requesting a hearing/presentation with DOE experts in particle detection handling taxpayer money to address analytically and scientifically my idea/invention/project that was recognized valuable by a major international public scientific review requested by the Director of the Superconducting Super Collider, also Director of FERMILab, paid for by DOE, and held at FERMILAB, on December 14, 1993. The 3D-Flow invention has now evolved into the 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithms), that can replace many crates of electronics of current and future Level-1 Triggers in HEP experiments, with one crate of the 3D-Flow OPRA system with a staggering improvement in performance at a fraction of the cost of alternative systems. (After the 1993 review, my invention was published in the 1994 U.S. DOE Technology Transfer book DOE/LM-002 DE94005148).
Now that my proposal has been withdrawn I respectfully request you SWIFTLY SET UP A DATE AND TIME FOR A HEARING/PRESENTATION AT DOE AS PROMISED BY SIEGRIST ON MAY 6, 2016, where I could address analytically and scientifically my new idea with DOE experts handling taxpayer money.”
I am looking forward to your prompt response that my above requests have been accepted.
President of the Crosetto Foundation for the reduction of Cancer Deaths
900 Hideaway Pl.
DeSoto, TX 75115
From: Crawford, Glen [mailto:Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 9:15 AM To: Dario Crosetto <email@example.com>; Siegrist, Jim <Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov> Cc: Pepper, Sherry <Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov>; Bibbs, Vera <Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov>; firstname.lastname@example.org; ‘Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths’ <email@example.com>; Hannan, Janice <Janice.Hannan@science.doe.gov> Subject: RE: Jim and Glen, Please could you set a date and time to address analytically and scientifically my 413-page proposal with you and your experts handling taxpayer money? Thank you, Dario
Dear Dr Crosetto,
Your proposal is currently under review. We cannot discuss pending proposals while they are under review.
You will be notified when the review has been completed and a decision has been made.
We appreciate your patience in this matter.
From: Crawford, Glen [mailto:Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:40 AM To: Dario Crosetto <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Siegrist, Jim <Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov> Cc: Pepper, Sherry <Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov>; email@example.com Subject: RE: Answer to your request to provide important ingredients for a compelling case for my visit
Sorry but I have no record of your email. If there were large (multi-MB) attachments it may have been blocked by our mail server.
Please re-send to me at this address.
From: Crawford, Glen [mailto:Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 5:59 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com Subject: link to HEP research funding
Dear Dr. Crosetto,
Dr Siegrist asked that I direct you to DOE HEP funding opportunities which can be found here:
Also note the important HEP Proposal Guidelines which are linked off the above page
Glen Crawford firstname.lastname@example.org
Director, Research and Technology Division
Office of High Energy Physics
Phone 301 903 4829
Fax 301 903 2597
“Lack of skill dictates economy of style”
## Correspondence with DOE Contract specialist Jason Dozier
From: Dozier, Jason J [mailto:Jason.Dozier@Science.doe.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 3:09 PM To: Dario Crosetto <email@example.com> Cc: Laing, Kim <Kim.Laing@science.doe.gov>; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: DE-FOA-0001414 – FY 2016 Continuation of Solicitation for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program
Correct. At this time, per the information provided, the proposal could not be withdrawn.
From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 3:53 PM To: Dozier, Jason J <Jason.Dozier@Science.doe.gov> Cc: Laing, Kim <Kim.Laing@science.doe.gov>; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: DE-FOA-0001414 – FY 2016 Continuation of Solicitation for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program
So, you were not able to stop the process and to withdraw my proposal as of yesterday, May 17, 2016?
When a proposal is withdrawn nothing happens, everything should stop, no reports should be generated except the statement: “the proposal has been withdrawn by the applicant on May 17, 2016”
However, you could not have this executed. Is my interpretation correct?
Thank you for your prompt reply,
From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 12:59 PM To: ‘Dozier, Jason J’ <Jason.Dozier@Science.doe.gov> Cc: ‘Laing, Kim’ <Kim.Laing@science.doe.gov>; ‘Harris, Heather M’ <Heather.Harris@Science.doe.gov>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com> Subject: RE: DE-FOA-0001414 – FY 2016 Continuation of Solicitation for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program
Dear Dr. Dozier,
Thank you for your prompt response. My request was to interrupt the process immediately as of May 17, 2016 and not complete this phase of the review process and not generate any report because of several reasons explained in my previous email, among which:
- a) merit reviewers cannot evaluate the proposal if they do not have the quotes from two companies of the most expensive component, the 3D-Flow ASIC costing more than $2 million,
- b) a series of statements from Ms. Lauren Smith (DOE executive officer of the office of Dr. Patricia Dehmer) which accuse me of not complying,
- c) DOE has lost many opportunities to provide benefits to taxpayers from my inventions ( 102-141) by funding less efficient and more costly projects. Please do not misinterpret my request, which has been since the beginning and continues to be that of discussing analytically and scientifically my idea/invention/project with DOE experts handling taxpayer money so that together we can best implement DOE’s mission to serve taxpayers in “catalyzing the transformative growth of basic applied scientific research”. This is achievable by implementing analytical procedures based on calculations and scientific evidence which are the basis for advancement in science and at the core of ethics, the responsibilities and mission of the scientific community.
…And for several other reasons listed in the previous emails.
Please provide a citation with references to the DOE regulation stating that a review cannot be withdrawn, the process cannot be interrupted that the “phase” of the review process need to be completed and it cannot be accepted the request by the applicant not to generate a report because merit reviewers did not have relevant information and they never addressed the NDA agreement that would allow to provide relevant information that I was told DOE had addressed and solved in other cases.
Looking forward to your prompt reply
- Please see below your message my request to the Program Manager Glen Crawford
### Correspondence with Helmut Marsiske
From: Marsiske, Helmut [mailto:Helmut.Marsiske@science.doe.gov] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 11:23 AM To: Dario Crosetto <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Siegrist, Jim <Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov>; Pepper, Sherry <Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov> Subject: RE: phone discussion
Dear Mr. Crosetto,
this is to confirm that I have received the materials you sent to DOE on November 4, 2015, and that I am available for a phone conversation today, November 16, 2015, at 1:30 PM EST.
However, I have to reiterate my message to you as stated in my e-mail from November 11, 2015:
I do not have time to evaluate detailed materials or receive visits or presentations from people seeking funding from the HEP instrumentation program that I am managing. The ONLY way for you to proceed is to submit a proposal to the appropriate Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). I will have the proposal reviewed for the merit criteria spelled out in the FOA and then it will compete for funding based on the outcome of that review. Everything else is irrelevant for funding decisions in my program.
Dr. Helmut Marsiske E-mail: Helmut.Marsiske@science.doe.gov
Program Manager for Instrumentation Phone: 301-903-6989
Office of High Energy Physics, Office of Science Fax: 301-903-2597
U.S. Department of Energy
Partial list of emails sent to Glen Crawford informing him about my invention that need to be addressed and transparently compared analytically, based on calculations and scientific evidences to other projects he is funding using taxpayer money.
Example of difficulties to send to DOE documents relative to my 3D-Flow invention and its advantages compared to the projects funded by DOE. I continued to receive the message that my email and/or attachment was not received. I had to send it via US Post Office, however, after DOE received it, it was not addressed in a phone conversation as promised.
Partial list of the dates when Glen Crawford received information about my invention, but he never addressed it.
Crosetto’s breakthrough invention: 3D-Flow OPRA
-a revolutionary electronic instrument for multiple applications: advancing science, saving lives, fighting terrorism, …
3D-Flow OPRA: A revolutionary electronic instrument capable of executing programmable, fast, multidimensional Object Pattern real-time Recognition Algorithms (OPRA) by analyzing ALL data arriving at ultra-high speed from a matrix of thousands of transducers at 1.3TB/sec for each VXI or ATCA crate (a cube of electronics of 36 cm) with 8,192 electronic channels.
This performance is achieved with 3D-Flow processors implemented with standard technology housing 64 processors per chip (or ASIC, Application Specific Integrated Circuit) costing $1 per 3D-Flow processor.
Using more advanced technologies to implement the 3D-Flow OPRA invention, performance reaching over 20TB/sec in the execution of Object Pattern real-time Recognition Algorithms can be achieved in a single VXI or ATCA crate (a cube of electronics of 36 cm).
See the 3D-Flow OPRA project at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5MlpkbUpjbEIybUk/view?usp=sharing
At this link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5OEowTjZMN1J5dzA/view?usp=sharing) you can find three Abstracts and Summaries submitted on May 3rd, 2016, to the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in November 2016.
I. Advantages & Benefits of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow OPRA breakthrough invention to discover new particles:
A. Technical advantages:
Capable of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation at the lowest cost per valid signal captured.
Allows experimenters to cost-effectively implement their desired Level-1 Trigger Algorithm identifying any particle with specific characteristics and effectively filter uninteresting signals (Providing a very high S/N ratio).
C. Analytical Proof by following analytical procedures based on calculations and scientific evidence
An analytical examination of Crosetto’s two attached 3D-Flow-OPRA slides (See pp. 3-4) and those by STFC_SWATCH and the previous CMS Level-1 Trigger implementation, coupled with a dialogue between the authors where they may question each other, verify calculations and scientific evidence supporting their claims, will identify any errors, differences, limitations, advantages and benefits of one system with respect to the other.
For example, one can verify before construction of the hardware whether the 4,000 electronic data processing boards of the CMS Level-1 Trigger (developed from 1994 to February 26, 2016), the new 100 electronic data processing boards of the CMS SWATCH (used from February 26, 2016), or the 9 electronic data processing boards of the 3D-Flow OPRA can execute several experimenters’ desired algorithms with highest probability to identify the new particle with specific characteristics and at what cost. Each parameter and component of the system should be verified for its performance and feasibility (e.g. the 59 quotes supporting feasibility of the 3D-Flow OPRA).
Crosetto’s basic 3D-Flow invention underwent a thorough analytical process, was approved by academia, industry and research centers (including a representative from CERN) at a major international PUBLIC scientific review held at Fermi National Laboratory on December 14, 1993 (see pp. 56-74), acclaimed and endorsed (see pp. 51-55 & 75-83) valuable by several top experts in the field to create a fully programmable Level-1 Trigger with zero dead-time, a powerful tool for experimenters to discover new particles. Furthermore, it received awards and passed subsequent scientific reviews (pp. 84-101), was proven feasible and functional in hardware (pp. 142-144), and proven scientifically advantageous and beneficial in many applications (pp. 1-2 & 24-29) ― but funding went to less efficient and more costly approaches.
The DOE missed several opportunities (see pp. 104-141) to save millions of dollars and create a more powerful tool for discovering new particles at a fraction of the cost and benefit many other applications such as saving millions of lives with early cancer detection because an analytical and scientific discussion of Crosetto’s inventions was denied.
D. Proof by experimental results
After determining through the analytical process which Level-1 Trigger project(s) is more cost-effective, one should envision designing an instrument that is generating data as the LHC detectors do to be able to test repetitively, under controlled conditions the new Level-1 Trigger unit, and verify experimentally if the calculations and feasibility study performed during the analytical process were correct.
Crosetto’s proposal (see pp. 158-170) provides the design of such a unit called “Trigger Event Recorder & Detector Simulator Unit” (TER/DSU) which can test the three trigger systems in the attached slides (STFC_SWATCH.pdf, 3D-Flow-OPRA.pdf) as well as any Level-1 Trigger system.
An 8,192 channel TER/DSU @ 640Mbps per channel system costing approximately $50,000 (this price is based on the quotes received from three competing companies to whom Crosetto provided the specifications and design of this instrument that can be configured in any size through its modular 512 channels boards) can provide the functionality of the LHC collider and detector that required over 20 years of development at a cost of over $50 billion.
One 8,192 ch. TER/DSU unit could be installed at each CERN-LHC detectors to record real data from an experiment (from 0.2 to 1.6 seconds, depending on the size of memory used in the TER/DSU modules). Data could then be transferred to a similar unit installed at each university that is developing data processing boards for the Level-1 Trigger.
The data recorded from a real experiment will provide the user the possibility to test if their Level-1 Trigger design has the capability to filter the non-interesting signals generated from the background radiation, and furthermore, the user will have the possibility to edit these data and add events with the specific characteristic of a Higgs boson-like particle or other particles. To test whether the proposed Level-1 Trigger System provides zero dead-time, Higgs boson-like events can be edited in two consecutive bunch-crossing memory locations of the TER/DSU unit.
Unfortunately, this TER/DSU unit was not conceived or planned to be built during the past 22 years with the result that, because collisions at the LHC are not controllable, the same patterns cannot be repeated forever to test the Level-1 Trigger unit by looking at signals at the oscilloscope or at a logic state analyzer, the CMS Level-1 Trigger made of 4,000 data processing boards could not be tested properly in the lab before installing at CERN-LHC-CMS detector. In the end the CMS Level-1 Trigger could not find Higgs boson-like particles. The 40 Higgs boson-like particles found in 2011-2012 from the 100,000 generated by the LHC collider and used to publish the article in 2012 claiming victory were found by analyzing trillions of data recorded casually, not by merit of the Level-1 Trigger.
II. Advantages & Benefits of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS breakthrough invention based on the 3D-Flow OPRA to save lives with a cost-effective early cancer detection:
A. Technical advantages:
Capable of extracting ALL information from the radiation associated with tumor-markers at the lowest cost per valid tumor-marker captured.
Provides a cost-effective screening device with the potential to save millions of lives with an effective early detection of cancer and other diseases, providing physicians with more accurate information to improve diagnoses, prognoses and improve the monitoring of diseases.
C. Analytical Proof by following analytical procedures based on calculations and scientific evidence
An analytical examination of Crosetto’s two articles presented at the 2000 IEEE-MIC conference in Lyon, France, the technical-scientific book “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost Cancer Screening” (patent pending), 200 copies of which were distributed free of charge to leaders in the field, Crosetto’s 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) invention being recognized superior and more cost-effective than other approaches in several PUBLIC international scientific reviews, winning the Leonardo da Vinci Prize for the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis, calculations and scientific evidence, all prove analytically the advantages and superiority of the 3D-CBS compared to any other PET devices or approaches.
The design, construction, and testing in hardware of two modular photon detection boards, each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors capable of extracting all information from the radiation associated to the tumor-markers and presented at the IEEE-MIC Conference in 2003 is further proof that calculations during the analytical process of examining Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention are correct.
Now scientists who obstructed Crosetto’s project and rejected his articles by claiming it was not necessary to improve the electronics in PET but to improve the characteristics of the crystal detectors and to intensify computational resources at the back-end of PET (see reviewer’s rejections statement of Crosetto’s request for funding), as well as to improve spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity (Crosetto’s proposals provide intensive computation at the front-end of PET and the accurate measurement of all parameters: spatial, time, energy resolution as well as maximizing sensitivity) – these same scientists and their circle of friends are copying Crosetto’s idea. This is even further proof that calculations during the analytical process of examining Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention are correct.
Still today taxpayers and cancer patients cannot receive the benefits of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention because it is not funded, while those who crushed his inventions and his 3D-CBS idea for 15 years and then copied it with their Explorer as they admit in slide 6 presented at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference received $15.5 million from NIH through their circle of friends who are approving NIH funding despite the fact that their device cannot significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost because it is less efficient and ten times more expensive than the 3D-CBS.
The Explorer project which uses 500,000 expensive crystals together with other expensive components described in articles and press releases by its authors is less efficient and over ten times more expensive than the 3D-CBS invention which uses less than 1,000 economical crystals and achieves higher efficiency with a significantly greater potential to reduce cancer deaths and healthcare costs. The problem is that these peers meet behind closed doors to split NIH taxpayer money among themselves, a circle of friends – wasting public money in pursuit of their own agendas and personal interests.
Crosetto’s 32-page article and poster presented at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTDS conference in Seoul, South Korea provides calculations and references of the superiority and cost-effectiveness of his 3D-CBS invention compared to other PET devices commercially available and those presented at conferences as future designs.
Unfortunately, 158,868,000 people have died from cancer since Crosetto’s inventions intensifying computation at the front-end of PET, accurately measuring all parameters of the radiation associated to tumor markers, etc., were rejected. Many of these people could have been saved with Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention effective for early cancer detection.
After 19 years, the authors of the Explorer and their circle of friends who obstructed Crosetto or refused to address analytically, based on calculation and scientific evidence their rejection claims, now seem to understand that the direction needed is to change from improving PET crystals to improving the electronics at the front-end rather than at the back-end. Their new statements compared to their past statements are reversed in their press release: «We’re developing the electronic interface between the detectors and the computer algorithm—and the electronics for this scanner is an order of magnitude more complicated than what’s been done before,” says Moses».
However, if the peer review system of articles, NIH and other funding agencies continue to assign taxpayer money in closed door meetings among a circle of friends, how many more deaths and years will it take before an analytical and scientific discussion of Crosetto’s invention is accepted instead of funding the Explorer which is less efficient and over ten times more expensive than the 3D-CBS?
D. Proofs from experimental results
One way to maximize cancer deaths and cost reduction would be to demand that funding agencies which use taxpayer and donation money to fight cancer, whether through a new drug, vaccine, medical imaging device, or healthy lifestyle promotion, etc., estimate the reduction of cancer deaths and cost they expect to attain with their project (or combined with other existing techniques) and present a plan to test it on a sample population. For example, test the plan on 10,000 people, ages 55-74 taken from a location where the mortality rate has been constant for the past 20 years. A difference or no difference in the mortality rate will quantify the success or failure of the proposed solution.
Funding agencies should determine: What, When, and How they will provide taxpayers a return in cancer death and cost reduction by asking applicants submitting a request to fund a cancer research project:
- 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?
Crosetto plans to build three 3D-CBS devices, then place them in three different locations to test 10,000 people per device (as detailed before).
Based on quotes from reputable companies, materials needed, and transparent verifiable calculations, the first 3D-CBS will cost approximately $8 million. Two additional units will cost $4 million each, to reach a production cost of approximately $2.5 million each. It is feasible to build one unit within two years from funding and three 3D-CBS units within three years from funding for a total cost of $20 million including testing costs.
Based on the increased efficiency, the estimated cancer death reduction achievable with the 3D-CBS is 33% in 6 years from funding and 50% in 10 years. In summary, Crosetto’s answers to the above questions are the following:
- Estimate of 33% cancer death reduction in 6 years from funding and 50% in 10 years.
- First results expected in 3 years from funding.
- $20 Million to develop 3 x 3D-CBS units (compared to billions of dollars for drug developments). Operating costs estimated at $400 per exam.
- It is hundreds of time more efficient than current over 6,000 PET (Positron Emission Tomography), its components costs 1/10 less than the Explorer device for Medical Imaging funded recently for $15.5 million by a circle of friends who obstructed Crosetto’s idea for 15 years and then copied it using NIH-NCI taxpayer money to fund their less efficient more expensive Explorer that cannot significantly reduce cancer deaths and.
- Supporting analytical and scientific evidence are available in a 413-page document (271-page publicly available) describing the basic components of the inventions whose feasibility are supported by 59 quotes from several reputable companies
Based on the description from articles and press releases by authors of the Explorer with 500,000 expensive crystals and related components, the first Explorer unit, which is less efficient than the 3D-CBS unit, is estimated to cost over $100 million, the second and third $60 million each, reducing to approximately $40 million each in full production. In summary, the construction of three Explorer units will cost over $200 million, over ten times the cost of the $20 million needed for three 3D-CBS units. Plus the impact of the Explorer to save lives will be much lower compared to the 3D-CBS and will increase healthcare costs.
III. Advantages & Benefits of Crosetto’s breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA invention for several other applications:
The 3D-Flow OPRA system allows accurate quality control in the manufacturing industry. It opens the door to advance research in many other fields by analyzing, identifying and/or triggering on specific frames in fast chemical processes, or from normal cells mutating into cancerous cells from biological or chemical processes sent from movie cameras operating at over 100 million frames per second. It provides a tool to understand the dynamics before and after metals or other material under stress break the structure of their molecules, etc.
It can measure all kinds of phenomena and identify all kinds of objects in 3-D that create an electrical signal in response to physical stimuli. For example, a shape of different colors, a shape of different levels of heat, a shape of different levels of sound volume and frequencies, a shape of different energies, a shape of different mechanical stress, a shape of different pressure, a shape of different light, the characteristics of a specific subatomic particle measured from signals generated by CCD, APD, PMT, SiPM, PADs, silicon strip detectors, wire-chambers, drift-chambers, etc.
IV. Obstacles preventing transferring benefits from Crosetto’s inventions to taxpayers and humanity
Beginning in the year 2000, after Crosetto’s publication of his 45-page peer-review article on Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, it became more and more clear that several scientists in the field of particle detection and Medical Imaging belonging to Universities and who had an interest in seeing the benefits to taxpayers provided by Crosetto’s superior invention being crushed so they could receive funding to support their own projects, pursue their personal interests and those of their circle of friends, began treating Crosetto’s research work unfairly by denying his requests for presentations at conferences, and rejecting his articles as well as rejecting his grant proposals to DOE, NIH, NSF, CPRIT, when in the past he had received over $1 Million in grants from 1995 to 1998 from DOE and DOD.
This is not just Crosetto’s perception as there are several documented facts to supporting it; listed here are a few of them:
- In 1998 Crosetto was prevented from participating and presenting his 3D-Flow invention at the Workshop on Electronics for LHC experiment at Snowmass, Colorado, because the co-Chairmen argued that Crosetto’s invention was not adopted by Atlas or CMS experiments. Atlas and CMS experiments should have been asked why they endorsed and funded less efficient and more expensive approaches…, e.g. building 4,000 electronic boards for the CMS level-1 Trigger that did not work, while Crosetto’s invention was recognized valuable by a major public scientific review (see pp. 56-74), acclaimed and endorsed in many letters (see pp. 51-55 & 75-83) from top experts in the field, and could execute any programmable object pattern recognition algorithm with zero dead time. Thereafter, Crosetto has been prevented from presenting his innovations at all IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences except in 2003 and 2013 when Ralph James was the Chairman.
- In 1999 anonymous reviewers rejected Crosetto’s paper for publication claiming that his 3D-Flow invention was flawed. An IEEE senior scientist appointed renowned scientists to review Crosetto’s 3D-Flow paper and they approved it for publication. However, the paper was never published because the editor considered the judgement of the anonymous reviewers more important even though they did not explain why the 3D-Flow architecture in their opinion was flawed. The 3D-Flow architecture was proven feasible and functional by simulation in 1997 and starting from 2001 in FPGA hardware.
- In 2002 the General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference rejected all Crosetto’s abstracts relative to his 3D-Flow and his 3D-CBS idea, then asked Crosetto to send him his technical-scientific book “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost Cancer Screening.” Now this same Chairman is among the authors who copied Crosetto’s idea with their Explorer device which, in spite of being less efficient, ten times more expensive and not useful to significantly reduce cancer deaths, has received $15.5 million taxpayer money through a circle of friends among the NIH-NCI reviewers during the funding process. (See the Chairman’s problems he faced before reading Crosetto’s book and how Crosetto’s idea was copied in the Explorer device 13 years later by the Chairman https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5c001X3NFLXM4MTQ/view?usp=sharing)
- In 2008 after Crosetto wrote a letter to the General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference, he recognized the value of Crosetto’s inventions and urged him to submit the abstracts that were rejected the previous years. The Chairman promised to provide a scientific reason in the event they were rejected again and to help organize a forum via internet through the EVO web meeting system from CERN. Instead, he received inconsistent non-scientific reasons from his reviewers and experts in the field whom he contacted for the forum to address the most innovative ideas that would provide technological advantages in medical imaging to the benefit of cancer patients. He was powerless in implementing scientific procedures to the benefit of mankind. Scientific arguments were not provided to support the rejections and he could not find anyone to participate in the public forum. (See at this link the correspondence and facts about the Chairman’s attempts to implement scientific procedures that failed)
- In 2010 Crosetto was stopped from asking a legitimate, pertinent question at the workshop “Physics for Health” held at CERN and the microphone was taken away from him. His question was related to improving PET efficiency by maximizing the accuracy in the measurements of all its parameters rather than improving only spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity as the presenter of the Axial PET project did. The presenter of the Axial PET project won the first prize assigned by his supervisor, CERN director of Research, who was the managing Director of the Axial PET project and also a member of the committee assigning the prize for the best project. Practically speaking, he awarded himself.
- In 2013 Crosetto’s abstract of the 3D-CBS innovation which is hundreds of times more efficient than current PET submitted to the IEEE-MIC conference was again rejected, while a copy of his idea, the Explorer, but ten times more expensive, was accepted. Crosetto exchanged several email with the Deputy Chairman of the conference who had accepted from his circle of friends 17 of his articles to improve PET special resolution to the detriment of sensitivity. Another reason his papers were accepted is because he received millions of dollars from NIH grants. NIH grants R01 CA119056, R01 CA119056S1 (ARRA), R01 CA120474, and R01 EB011552 and DOE grant DESC0005290 which funded the Deputy Chairman’s “block detector” with 1x1x1 mm3 crystals with many holes between the crystals that cannot capture the photons generated from the tumor markers. This NIH million dollars cannot reduce cancer deaths because this PET is very inefficient, requiring administration of high radiation to the patient and a high examination cost.
- In 2014 Crosetto was stopped by the Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference from asking a legitimate question to the NSS keynote speaker about the discrepancy between CMS 125.3 GeV and Atlas 126.5 GeV measurement of the energy of the announced Higgs boson-like particle that was published before calibrating the instruments. After the event, Crosetto asked the Chairman why he stopped him from addressing this issue with the keynote speaker. The Chairman replied it was because Crosetto was wrong in asking the question and claiming CMS and Atlas billion dollar instruments did not perform accurate measurements. He stated that CMS and Atlas measurements are very accurate and that they have made extensive measurements. He stated that even the same instrumentation never gives the same measurement when performed at different times because differences in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, tides caused by the moon, etc., can make a difference at 15-digit decimal point. Crosetto agreed with the Chairman, but said CMS at 125.3 GeV and Atlas at 126.5 GeV have a 0.91% difference in their measurements, which is 100 trillion times greater than the error the Chairman indicated of 0.00000000000000091%. At that point, instead of resolving the issue based on the evidence of the calculations, the Chairman ran away with the excuse that he had other important things to do. The following year ALL Crosetto’s papers were again rejected as you can see on page 245 of Crosetto’s proposal with claims of “propaganda” but refusing to discuss his equations, calculations, and scientific evidence that would demonstrate the solid scientific evidence which is not propaganda.
- In 2014 Crosetto’s microphone was again taken away by the Deputy Chair of the IEEE-MIC Conference while asking a question to the MIC keynote speaker who presented a PET with sub-millimeter spatial resolution and very low sensitivity and efficiency in capturing signals from the tumor markers. Crosetto pointed out that his PET technique presents intrinsic errors of the path travelled by the positron before encountering an electron (from 1.4 mm to 13 mm) and the collinearity error that are affecting spatial resolution which are due to the natural phenomenon that cannot be eliminated. Therefore, developing expensive electronics and crystal block detectors that cannot capture all signals from tumor markers is a disadvantage to the patient who receives high radiation and to the physician who cannot receive the information from the instrument related to the minimum abnormal metabolism. The speaker answered that he was a chemist and was not aware of these nuclear phenomena. Crosetto asked if he would agree to have a public workshop within the conference where he and others could present their ideas and resolve this issue scientifically among scientists. (The issue if PET development should go in the direction of higher spatial resolution or higher sensitivity). At that point the microphone was taken away from Crosetto and the discussion interrupted before the speaker could answer. Crosetto later in the day met the speaker and his team and realized that they were satisfying the requirements of a pharmaceutical company that was interested in knowing the minimum shrinkage of the tumor as a consequence of the use of their drugs because that is a selling point, but were not concerned about saving people’s lives for the long term. However, because the organizers of the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD impeded Crosetto from further discussion during the public session, thousands of scientists participating at the conference were denied hearing the outcome of a dialogue among scientists that would have made the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge. This explains why it takes decades to change the trend of scientists focusing on improving spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity to improving PET sensitivity at the lowest cost per valid tumor marker captured.
- In 2015 Crosetto’s abstract submitted to the PSMR2015 conference was rejected by reviewers and confirmed by the conference Chairmen without them providing any scientific reasons how they determined the score. When Crosetto asked one of the Chairmen how the peer-review (articles and funding) system works, he talked about psychology, the human factor, friends and enemies, “scientific opinions”, instead of a scientific review process based on the accuracy of calculations, analyzing scientific evidence, etc. He told Crosetto that this is how the scientific community is – using his exact words: “…but this is the procedure. I will be happy to see the European Union improving the procedure, but I do not think that there is a way to leave the human outside…” (by human he is referring to friends and enemies instead of sticking to analytical and scientific merits of an article or proposal). He applauded Crosetto for trying to improve this procedure with his exact words: “If you think this procedure needs to be revised, it is very good that you make the effort to have them improve it, but until then…” From the Chairman’s last words it is clear the consequences from the meaning, implementation and power of the word “rejection” of an article or funding a project with the type of peer-review described before: (a “scientific opinion” instead of a PUBLIC scientific review process based on the accuracy of calculations, analyzing scientific evidences…; “friends and enemies” which explains approving articles and funding to a “circle of friends” and rejecting those “who are not within a circle of friends”. Here are the Chairman last words: “if the proposal is rejected and there is no money, so the machine will never be made, so we will never know who was wrong and who was correct”. This is the way innovations are crushed and humanity is deprived from its benefits because of a rigged peer-review system. At the end of the conversation, Crosetto asked if he could share the Chairman’s vision with others and he gave his permission. Therefore, you can find the transcript and recorded voice at the web site http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1363
It is undeniable that funding agencies funded inefficient and inadequate approaches in HEP wasting $50 billion and 20 years of work because the current Level-1 Trigger of the large CMS and Atlas experiments need to be trashed. This is stated in the CMS and Atlas 2013 detector upgrade documents. It is undeniable that now funding agencies are making the same mistake in funding the new Level-1 Trigger of these large experiments with FPGA implementations. This time they will waste $30 billion and the work of 12,000 scientists over the next 10 years.
It is undeniable that millions of lives and trillions of dollars have been lost because of inefficient medical instrumentation and that many could have been saved with Crosetto’s 3D-CBS technology hundreds of times more efficient than current PET (Positron Emission Tomography) technology.
Because Crosetto’s basic 3D-Flow invention Crosetto’s underwent a thorough analytical process, was approved by academia, industry and research centers (including a representative from CERN) at a major international PUBLIC scientific review held at Fermi National Laboratory on December 14, 1993 (see pp. 56-74), acclaimed and endorsed (see pp. 51-55 & 75-83) valuable by several top experts in the field, it should be the interest of government officials handling taxpayer money, the media who provide information in the public interest, and for everyone to request a PUBLIC scientific review of the new 3D-Flow OPRA Crosetto’s inventions described in the proposal dated December 22, 2015, in a way similar to the one requested by the Director of the Superconducting Super Collider (also Director of FERMILAB) held at FERILAB on December 14, 1993.
Officials from government funding agencies responsible for assigning taxpayer money to research projects who claim they cannot allow this PUBLIC scientific review to occur because they want to be fair to all scientists should make an exception because 1) of the staggering breakthrough of Crosetto’s inventions that can replace 4,000 electronic data processing boards in hundreds of crates with 9 electronic boards in a single crate at 1/1000 the cost and with higher performance, even when compared to the most recent upgrade of the CMS Level-1 Trigger, 2) of all the people that can be saved with the 3D-CBS cost-effective early cancer detection and 3) of all the benefits Crosetto’s inventions can provide in many different fields.
There are too many facts, circumstances and cases showing that the current government (and non-government) scientific peer-review process where reviewers meet behind closed doors to split taxpayer money is rigged and needs to be reformed.
This reform may take years. Right now it is more important TO BE FAIR to taxpayers, to cancer patients and to government leaders who are promising their citizens significant results in cancer death reduction.
Because over the past 24 years several reputable scientists and professionals have placed their names in the open endorsing Crosetto’s innovations in a written report of the 1993 FERMILAB PUBLIC scientific review of his invention stating “The committee finds this project and interesting and unique concept for construction programmable level-1 trigger system. We believe the concept will work for calorimetry and may work for level-1 tracking. We see no technical reason why the proposed ASIC processor could not be built in approximately one year. We do not believe that there are any major flaws in the proposed system, …there were some feeling that given this feature experimenters would probably think of clever uses not now possible” (see pp. 56-74), and in many letters of endorsement (see pp. 51-55 & 75-83), if other scientists do not agree with their professional evaluation, it would be fair to ask for a PUBLIC review of the new 3D-Flow OPRA similar to the FERMILAB review in 1993, and the anonymous scientists who have opposed Crosetto’s invention all these years should come forward and stand behind their claims with calculations and scientific evidence.
Several of the scientists who obstructed the implementation of Crosetto’s invention appropriated millions of dollars of taxpayer money which was wasted because they failed to deliver a system capable of identify particles satisfying the characteristics defined by theoretical and experimental scientists, and failed to provide a Medical Imaging device that could significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost.
Therefore, it should be the interest of everyone to ask government officials in charge of assigning taxpayer money to remove their resistance to a PUBLIC scientific review of Crosetto’s inventions because it is fair to everyone and is in everyone’s best interest.