| Home | Bookmark | Tell | Active petitions in over 75 countries | Follow GoPetition |
Support Accountability in Cancer Research
Published by Marco on Jan 20, 2010
I am co-signing the document, www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/371.pdf submitted to CERN at the workshop 2-4 February, 2010 on application of physics to defeat cancer entitled: “Progress in the Domain of Physics Applications in Life Science with an invention for Substantial Reduction of Premature Cancer Deaths: The Need for a Paradigm Change in Oncology Research”, asking workshop organizers to ensure that the following information will be provided (an example is attached at www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/353.pdf):
1. Each participant submitting an abstract about a cancer research project must explain how their research would benefits cancer patients and potential cancer patients by answering the following:
1.1. Cancer research title:
1.2. Category:
1.2.1. Category 1: __ fundamental research (long term results available over ten years from now) or
1.2.2. Category 2: __ immediate application (results in reduction in cancer deaths and cost in less than 10 yrs)
1.3. Estimated percent of lives saved annually from premature (< 75 years of age) cancer death:
1.4. Scientific arguments supporting estimate (provide web site or e-mail address):
1.5. Cost per life saved compared to the current costs: $______
1.6. Total cost of the project: $______
1.7. Estimated date of results from the time full funding is provided:_____
1.8. Results Measurement Plan showing how estimates can be verified experimentally (For example: a safe test on a representative sample of 10,000 people ages 50-75, selected from a population in a location with a constant cancer death rate of 50 deaths per year recorded over the previous 20 years). Provide web site or e-mail address:_______
2. Research proposals must be divided into two priority lists referring to two different budgets in order not to penalize long-term research: one list for fundamental research and one for immediate, short-term results.
3. CERN has the responsibility to organize meetings among proposers who will meet in their category group to support their claims and answer questions from colleagues and reviewers in a true, “peer-review” process.
4. Research institutions are required to adhere to such standards that will free them from dereliction of their duties and remove fraudulent research from funding consideration.
The resulting two lists will be of use for organizations, governments and donors who have the responsibility to evaluate who provides the best scientific argument for reducing cancer deaths at the lowest cost per life saved compared to the current costs.
Cancer research projects that cannot provide an estimate should not be funded. Those who cannot support their claims with scientific arguments should not be funded. Those who do not deliver on what they promise within two years of the projected results date will have their funding cut. Those who propose a solution will no longer be able to receive funding indefinitely without delivering results.
IN THIS WAY, ONLY RESEARCH PROJECTS THAT HAVE REAL POTENTIAL TO DELIVER RESULTS WILL BE FUNDED.
1. Each participant submitting an abstract about a cancer research project must explain how their research would benefits cancer patients and potential cancer patients by answering the following:
1.1. Cancer research title:
1.2. Category:
1.2.1. Category 1: __ fundamental research (long term results available over ten years from now) or
1.2.2. Category 2: __ immediate application (results in reduction in cancer deaths and cost in less than 10 yrs)
1.3. Estimated percent of lives saved annually from premature (< 75 years of age) cancer death:
1.4. Scientific arguments supporting estimate (provide web site or e-mail address):
1.5. Cost per life saved compared to the current costs: $______
1.6. Total cost of the project: $______
1.7. Estimated date of results from the time full funding is provided:_____
1.8. Results Measurement Plan showing how estimates can be verified experimentally (For example: a safe test on a representative sample of 10,000 people ages 50-75, selected from a population in a location with a constant cancer death rate of 50 deaths per year recorded over the previous 20 years). Provide web site or e-mail address:_______
2. Research proposals must be divided into two priority lists referring to two different budgets in order not to penalize long-term research: one list for fundamental research and one for immediate, short-term results.
3. CERN has the responsibility to organize meetings among proposers who will meet in their category group to support their claims and answer questions from colleagues and reviewers in a true, “peer-review” process.
4. Research institutions are required to adhere to such standards that will free them from dereliction of their duties and remove fraudulent research from funding consideration.
The resulting two lists will be of use for organizations, governments and donors who have the responsibility to evaluate who provides the best scientific argument for reducing cancer deaths at the lowest cost per life saved compared to the current costs.
Cancer research projects that cannot provide an estimate should not be funded. Those who cannot support their claims with scientific arguments should not be funded. Those who do not deliver on what they promise within two years of the projected results date will have their funding cut. Those who propose a solution will no longer be able to receive funding indefinitely without delivering results.
IN THIS WAY, ONLY RESEARCH PROJECTS THAT HAVE REAL POTENTIAL TO DELIVER RESULTS WILL BE FUNDED.
Complete the fields below and click 'Sign'. Optional fields may be completed or left blank.
* - required fields
 |
GoPetition respects your privacy. Click here for more information. |
