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

Are any of the IEEE leaders in favor of an OPEN, PUBLIC workshop where young and senior scientists may express the analytical thinking of their ideas and can question each other on calculations and scientific evidence? And would IEEE leaders agree to ask these same questions to their 400,000 IEEE members?

 

At the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference, Crosetto proposed two workshops where young scientists, PhD students and senior scientists could present their ideas and question each other publicly. The two Chairmen rejected Crosetto’s workshops refusing an open, public analytical, scientific discussion where young scientists, PhD students and senior scientists could present their ideas and question each other.

 

Crosetto’s workshop proposal submitted at the 2014 IEEE-NSS conference

 

How does your project/idea/invention compare to other projects in the advancement of science, in the discovery of new particles and in reducing the cost of HEP experiments?” submitted on May 4, 2014 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5Z0p5Ni1xWEhmaUU/edit?usp=sharing

 

Excerpt for the text of the proposed workshop:

 

The proposed workshop is designed to implement a scientific procedure to make the scientific truth emerge by allowing senior scientists, which should include representatives from CMS, Atlas, LHCb and ALICE experiments, Crosetto, young scientists, PhD students, and anyone else who has ideas/projects/inventions challenging the mainstream approach described in CERN official documents, to present their approaches for 5 to 10 minutes and leave two hours for discussion among the scientists who may question each other in public.

 

The reasons given by I. Gregor’s and A. Bernstein’s for their rejection of transparency in science with the proposed workshop are (see the original text of Gregor and Bernstein rejection):

 

  1. a) that in their opinion the results of the ATLAS and CMS experiments “are not inconclusive at all”,

 

  1. b) that “There is no replacement of the trigger planned for the near future”,

 

  1. c) that they do not see in the proposal “details of a specific approach, technology, or focus topic area”,

 

  1. d) that in their opinion the proposal “is lacking the detailed description of the proposed technology to reduce costs”.

 

Crosetto, after receiving on May 10, 2014, I. Gregor’s and A. Bernstein’s rejection to his proposed workshop, rebutted their rejections point-by-point in a 26-page letter dated June 30, 2014. Facts and documents show that the above statements provided by I. Gregor’s and A. Bernstein’s do not correspond to the truth. For example, the 4,000 electronic data processing boards of the CMS Level-1 Trigger were replaced by the 100 electronic data processing boards of the SWATCH system presented at the IEEE Real-Time conference in Padova, Italy, from June 6 to June 10, 2016. (See the slides for the STFC_SWATCH.pdf and Crosetto’s two slides for the 3D-Flow-OPRA.pdf. which replaces the 4,000 CMS electronic data processing boards with 9 data processing boards providing a staggering performance improvement (See pp. 3-4).

 

 

 

Crosetto’s workshop proposal submitted at the 2014 IEEE-MIC conference

 

How does your project/idea/invention in Medical Imaging compare to other projects in advancing science and in particular in reducing cancer deaths and cost?” Submitted on May 9, 2014: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5ZmlyR1pIeWZCUTQ/view?usp=sharing

 

Excerpt from the text of the proposed workshop:

 

The reason for this workshop is…

 

The need for this workshop is to develop a metric to establish a link between proposed research and the ultimate objective to reduce cancer deaths and cost, when compared with others projects, and to point out advantages and weaknesses. Participants are encouraged to estimate and propose a plan to measure the percentage of reduction in cancer deaths they expect to attain from their research stand-alone, or when combined with other existing components or with other research currently being developed. One example is testing on a sample population taken from a group aged 55-74 that has had a constant cancer death rate for the past 20 years. A difference or no difference in cancer death reduction will determine the success or failure of the proposed research.

 

The scope of this workshop is to summarize the state-of-the-art technological developments in the various fields of application for Medical Imaging and recognize those that have greater potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. The limits of current systems should be analyzed…

 

The benefits from this workshop will lead to the identification and funding of the best solutions with the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. This can be achieved through a public dialogue that is following scientific procedures where everyone is given the opportunity to present their contribution to the advancement of science in the field. In this way, reliable information can be placed on Wikipedia and no relevant contribution to the history of PET and Medical Imaging will be left out. Scientists have a great responsibility to provide ethical and professional information so that the possibility to solve the cancer problem increases.

 

It is foreseen to have introductory and overview talks during the first 90 minutes made by internationally recognized experts. The focus of the following 60 minutes will be short (5 minutes, including questions) oral presentations by young scientists and PhD students. The last 2 hours will be dedicated to a round table discussion extended to participants via web EVO system that is used by HEP teleconferencing and can be used by any individual. We encourage young researchers to present and discuss their work. The entire event will be broadcast worldwide by professionals in communication.

Alfakhri’s and K. Parodi’s rejected transparency in science of the proposed workshop with the following statement:

 

“We regret to inform you that your workshop proposal entitled “How does your project/idea/invention in Medical Imaging compare to other projects in advancing science and in particular in reducing cancer deaths and cost?“ has not been selected for the 2014 IEEE NSS-MIC Conference in Seattle.

 

Share it!Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on TumblrEmail this to someone

Leave a Reply

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