Blockchain Papers

Imad Fakhri Taha Alshaikhli, Rusydi Hasan Makarin, Siti Khairunnisa Mohd Bakri, Nur Dalilah More Yusoff · 5 authors

Much of the current innovation in advanced materials is occurring at the nanoscale, specifically in manufactured nanomaterials (MNs). MNs display unique attributes and behaviors, and may be biologically and physically unique, making them valuable across a wide range of applications. However, as the number, diversity and complexity of MNs coming to market continue to grow, assessing their health and environmental risks with traditional animal testing approaches is too time- and cost-intensive to be practical, and is undesirable for ethical reasons. New approaches are needed that meet current requirements for regulatory risk assessment while reducing reliance on animal testing and enabling safer-by-design product development strategies to be implemented. The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework presents a sound model for the advancement of MN decision making. Yet, there are currently gaps in technical and policy aspects of AOPs that hinder the adoption and use for MN risk assessment and regulatory decision making. This review outlines the current status and next steps for the development and use of the AOP framework in decision making regarding the safety of MNs. Opportunities and challenges are identified concerning the advancement and adoption of AOPs as part of an integrated approach to testing and assessing (IATA) MNs, as are specific actions proposed to advance the development, use and acceptance of the AOP framework and associated testing strategies for MN risk assessment and decision making. The intention of this review is to reflect the views of a diversity of stakeholders including experts, researchers, policymakers, regulators, risk assessors and industry representatives on the current status, needs and requirements to facilitate the future use of AOPs in MN risk assessment. It incorporates the views and feedback of experts that participated in two workshops hosted as part of an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) project titled, "Advancing AOP Development for Nanomaterial Risk Assessment and Categorization", as well as input from several EU-funded nanosafety research consortia.

Zvika Brakerski, Jonathan Katz, Gil Segev, Arkady Yerukhimovich

No abstract is available for this record.

Marek Jawurek, Martin Johns, Florian Kerschbaum

Traditional electricity meters are replaced by Smart Meters in customers' households. Smart Meters collects fine-grained utility consumption profiles from customers, which in turn enables the introduction of dynamic, time-of-use tariffs. However, the fine-grained usage data that is compiled in this process also allows to infer the inhabitant's personal schedules and habits. We propose a privacy-preserving protocol that enables billing with time-of-use tariffs without disclosing the actual consumption profile to the supplier. Our approach relies on a zero-knowledge proof based on Pedersen Commitments performed by a plug-in privacy component that is put into the communication link between Smart Meter and supplier's back-end system. We require no changes to the Smart Meter hardware and only small changes to the software of Smart Meter and back-end system. In this paper we describe the functional and privacy requirements, the specification and security proof of our solution and give a performance evaluation of a prototypical implementation.

Héctor Pastén, Thanases Pheidas, Xavier Vidaux

No abstract is available for this record.

Giovanni Di Crescenzo, Javier Herranz, Germán Sáez

No abstract is available for this record.

Robert Steffen

With the economic recovery gaining momentum, travel experts predict that tourism in all regions will increase in 2010 by an estimated 3% to 4%. 1 This increase in travel is forecasted to exceed 5% in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, where the risk of acquiring meningococcal disease or becoming a carrier is higher. 2 When evaluating the need for vaccination in travelers, particularly for those traveling to developing world countries, it is important to consider not only the incidence rate but also the impact of the respective infection (Figure 1). 3 As an example, meningococcal disease is rarely reported in travelers, but the impact of this infection can be as devastating for travelers as for any other individual. With its rapid clinical course and narrow window for diagnosis, the potential for negative outcomes from meningococcal disease may be increased particularly in travelers to remote locations where access to adequate health care facilities and antibiotics is limited. There is an additional public health concern with meningococcal infection, as travelers who are carriers may spread the infection in the society back home. Impact and incidence of vaccine‐preventable diseases in travelers to developing countries. 3 PPD = purified protein derivative, a tuberculin test. Outbreaks of meningococcal disease frequently occurred among Hajj pilgrims, their contacts, and thereafter even in persons without known contacts prior to 2002, when authorities of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia issued a quadrivalent meningococcal vaccination requirement to obtain a Hajj visa. 4,5 Otherwise meningococcal disease usually has been considered to be rare among travelers (Figure 2). 6 A single retrospective survey has attempted to quantify the risk of meningococcal disease among international travelers originating in industrialized countries. 7 Health authorities in 56 of 108 contacted countries (51.9%) completed questionnaires concerning reported cases of meningococcal disease, and tourism data were derived from statistics provided by the World Tourism Organization and national tourism authorities for the study period (1986–1989). On the basis of 13 cases imported to 56 countries, a monthly incidence rate of 0.4 per million was extrapolated, which corresponds to approximately 0.4 per 100,000 population per year. 7 When this rate is compared with the commonly quoted annual incidence rate of 0.5 to 10 cases per 100,000 population in industrialized countries, 8,9 it appears that ordinary travel does not result in an increased risk for meningococcal disease. Incidence rate per month of vaccine‐preventable diseases in developing countries—2010. 4 CFR = case fatality rate. As in the general population, infections in travelers can occur in healthy persons without any apparent risk factors and regardless of the type of traveling or the travel destination. In the past few years, a number of anecdotal reports of meningococcal disease among travelers have been published (Table 1). 10–15 An additional six cases, which so far are unpublished, have been detected in the GeoSentinel, a worldwide communication and data collection network for the surveillance of travel‐related morbidity. 16 Among them, two occurred after a visit to Disney World (Pat Schlagenhauf, personal communication). This demonstrates that, among travelers, meningococcal disease may occur in all parts of the world and in various types of travelers—trekkers, leisure and business travelers, students, and pilgrims—and in all age groups. As in the population affected at home, children and young travelers were most frequently affected. Some of the cases of meningococcal disease in travelers reported in recent years confirm what we know from data in other populations: environmental risk is increased by staying in dormitories, 11,15 educational or military institutions, 17,18 and refugee camps 19 and by attending sporting events 20,21 and discotheques. 22 Clusters of meningococcal disease caused by the same strain have occurred in children whose connection was riding the same school bus, 23 which indicates there could be potential for transmission aboard tour buses. Almost 30 years ago during an outbreak situation, six trekkers fell ill in Nepal. 24 The sum of these examples illustrates that the risk of meningococcal disease in travelers can vary based on destination, mode of transport, type of accommodation, and reason for travel/destination activities. While high‐risk groups can be determined primarily on theoretical and general epidemiological considerations, there is no zero risk in any traveler. Anecdotal cases of meningococcal disease in travelers, 1996 to 2008 10–15 Anecdotal cases of meningococcal disease in travelers, 1996 to 2008 10–15 International travelers can also facilitate the global spread of meningococcal disease. Until 2002, this occurred almost annually after the Hajj. However, potentially risks may still occur, as illustrated by a 2009 case of an individual aged 43 years who contracted a fluoroquinolone‐resistant strain of Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A. 12 The patient developed symptoms within 24 hours of returning to Italy after traveling to Delhi and Chennai in India, with a stopover of a few hours in Frankfurt, Germany. Although the patient had no known contact with anyone in India with previous or current meningococcal disease, testing revealed the strain was the same that had caused epidemics in the area in 2005 to 2006. Fortunately, no known secondary cases have been reported in Italy. 12 During epidemics of meningococcal disease in sub‐Saharan Africa, the so‐called African meningitis belt that stretches from Senegal to Ethiopia, as many as 1,000 per 100,000 population may be affected. 25 Recently, the epidemic‐susceptible area has been expanded to Guinea‐Bissau, Guinea, the Ivory Coast, Togo, the Central African Republic, and Eritrea. 8 Countries around the Rift Valley and Great Lakes regions are also now considered to be at risk (Figure 3).26,27 Predicted probability of epidemic experience of meningococcal meningitis. 26 The risk of meningococcal disease in the population in this area is particularly elevated during the dry season between December and June because of dust winds and background upper respiratory tract infections. However, due to the dynamics of climate variability, risk exists somewhat all year. Population displacements, such as when nomads and farmers congregate in traditional market areas, and overcrowded living conditions can increase the risk of transmission and contribute to epidemics of disease. 28 According to the World Health Organization (WHO), in the 2009 epidemic season, 78,416 suspected cases of meningococcal disease, including 4,053 deaths, were reported in 14 African countries implementing enhanced surveillance techniques. 28 This represents the largest number of cases and deaths since the previous large meningococcal disease epidemic in this region in 1996 to 1997, during which >25,000 people died. 25 However, to our knowledge, there has not been a single case published about a traveler having been affected in the African meningitis belt. At the least, to some extent, this may be due to the fact that, following essentially congruent vaccination recommendations, a fair proportion of high‐risk travelers may have been protected appropriately. This may also be, in part, because active surveillance is limited in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, 25 which may result in an underestimation of burden. Finally, an important proportion of travelers has a different behavior and far more social distancing as compared to the local population. During the annual Hajj pilgrimage, >2 million Muslims from across the globe travel to Mecca and Medina. 29 The congregation of such a large population of individuals from such a wide variety of regions, as well as the crowded conditions at the destination, creates a good environment for meningococcal disease transmission, and the international spread of meningococcal disease resulting in outbreaks and epidemics in several countries has been linked to pilgrims returning from the Hajj prior to the institution of current vaccination protocols. 30–33 In 1987, outbreaks in the United States and a large epidemic in Africa of meningococcal serogroup A disease were associated with returning pilgrims. 33,34 More recently, in 2001 to 2002, outbreaks of serogroup W‐135 disease in Europe, the United States, the Middle East, and Asia, as well as a large epidemic in Burkina Faso in Africa, were linked to returning pilgrims. 30–32 One study assessing the risk for meningococcal disease spread as a result of the Hajj‐evaluated N meningitidis carriage in US pilgrims traveling through John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, NY, in February 2001. 31 The prevalence of N meningitidis carriage was higher in those returning from the Hajj (2.6% of 844) than in departing pilgrims (0.9% of 425). Although none of the outbound study participants tested were carriers of serogroup W‐135, nine of those tested inbound were positive for the serogroup (1.3%; p = 0.01). 31 After the 2001 Hajj, a 15% serogroup W‐135 carriage rate also was observed in 171 pilgrims returning to Singapore, with evidence of spread to household contacts. 35 In comparison, data from 2001 indicate that the risk of the international spread of meningococcal disease is much lower for Umrah pilgrimage, which is shorter, occurs all year, and involves much smaller groups of travelers. 29 Fortunately, as a consequence of enforced implementation of the meningococcal vaccine requirements issued by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia health authorities, no exportation of meningococcal disease by Hajj pilgrims has been reported since 2004. There is, however, some concern about serogroup B meningococcal disease for the future. 36 Approximately every 6 weeks, the CDC investigates an incident of possible transmission of meningococcal disease on an aircraft. 37,38 Many other national institutions have similar queries, and passengers have been diagnosed with meningococcal disease after arrival, such as a journalist with serogroup W‐135 in Singapore and an Israeli student in the United States. 9,29 On the other hand, to our knowledge, only two reports of in‐flight transmission have been published. The first occurred on a 14.5‐hour flight from Los Angeles to Sydney. Two individuals who had been sitting 12 rows apart were diagnosed with serogroup B meningococcal disease of the same allelic profile. Both patients were women aged >65 years, and both recovered after treatment with antibiotics. One patient reported walking around the plane with some frequency, whereas the other, seated in an aisle seat, only got up a few times to use the rest room. It remains unknown whether transmission occurred from one passenger to the other or whether a third carrier infected them both. 39 In the second report, one passenger and one crew member were infected on an 11‐hour military charter flight from the Southwestern United States to Frankfurt. One of the individuals had serogroup B disease; the serogroup in the other individual was undetermined. 40 Vaccination against meningococcal disease is not required for individuals traveling into any country except for Hajj and Umrah pilgrims to Saudi Arabia. 5,41 This visa requirement for Saudi Arabia has been extended to all nationals of many countries in tropical Africa arriving by air. 42 Proof of immunization is needed for all Hajj and Umrah visa applicants of all ages; depending on the age group and origin, other vaccinations may also be required (yellow fever, poliomyelitis, and influenza). 5 Applicants must have been immunized more than 10 days and less than 3 years before entering Saudi Arabia. 5 Because of this requirement for periodic vaccination, waning immunity due to immunologic hyporesponsiveness after repeat administration of meningococcal polysaccharide vaccines can be a concern. 6 A study on residents of Mecca and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, aged 10 to 29 years found that repeated administration of the AC polysaccharide vaccine resulted in immunologic hyporesponsiveness to serogroup C. 6 Hyporesponsiveness is not a factor with conjugate quadrivalent meningococcal vaccines, 43 and they should therefore be preferred for use for instance in Hajj pilgrims. Several national health authorities as well as the WHO have issued guidance on vaccinating travelers against meningococcal disease based on environmental factors, such as travel destination, time of year, and type of contact with the local population (Table 2). Although not all the recommendations are consistent—especially in terms of the strength of the recommendation—many overlap to some degree, and all recommend vaccination for all travelers visiting destinations with current outbreaks or epidemic situations. Synopsis of meningococcal vaccine recommendations in travelers WHO = World Health Organization; CDC = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; CATMAT = Canadian Committee to Advise on Tropical Medicine and Travel; NaTHNac = National Travel Health Network and Centre; ECTM = Expert Committee for Travel Medicine. Synopsis of meningococcal vaccine recommendations in travelers WHO = World Health Organization; CDC = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; CATMAT = Canadian Committee to Advise on Tropical Medicine and Travel; NaTHNac = National Travel Health Network and Centre; ECTM = Expert Committee for Travel Medicine. In its 2010 edition of International Travel and Health, the WHO lists meningococcal disease vaccination as being of selective use in travelers, along with hepatitis A vaccine, for example. 44 For travelers to industrialized nations, where they may be exposed to sporadic cases of meningococcal disease, WHO cautions that risk is increased in locations where large groups of adolescents and young adults congregate, such as in schools and college dormitories, and recommends considering vaccination for college students. Vaccination should also be considered in “all travelers to countries in the sub‐Saharan meningitis belt.” The risk of infection may be greater in those traveling during the dry season or those staying in the area for longer periods and living with or being in close contact with the local population. 44 Vaccination is also to be considered in “all travelers … to areas with current epidemics.” 44 The WHO, US, UK, and German/Swiss recommendations are very similar (Table 2). Essentially, vaccination is considered or recommended in similar at‐risk groups as those mentioned in the WHO guidance, including travelers to the African meningitis belt and those with prolonged contact with indigenous populations. The UK recommendations also specify meningococcal vaccination for health care workers and travelers visiting friends and relatives due to the close contact these activities involve. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the German/Swiss guidelines explicitly recommend vaccination with a quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine. The preferred vaccine in the United States for individuals aged 2 to 55 years is a glycoconjugate vaccine, with the polysaccharide quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine currently still recommended for those aged >55 years. Children who received either vaccine at age 2 to 6 years who remain at risk should be revaccinated 3 years later with the indicated glycoconjugate quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine, and then every 5 years thereafter. Recommendations are similar for those aged 7 to 55 years who remain at increased risk, except that the period from the initial vaccination to the first revaccination is 5 instead of 3 years. 8 Travelers to or residents of countries where meningococcal disease is hyperendemic or epidemic are one of the groups considered to have prolonged increased risk for meningococcal disease (along with those with increased susceptibility to infection and those with anatomic or functional asplenia). 45 Although the CDC travelers' guidelines do not include a recommendation for college students studying abroad in endemic areas (eg, Europe), general guidelines from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommend all college freshman living in dormitories in the United States who were vaccinated with the quadrivalent polysaccharide vaccine more than 5 years ago be revaccinated with a glycoconjugate quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine. 45 According to the American College Health Association adolescents and young adults account for nearly 30% of all cases of meningitis in the United States. Some 100 to 125 cases of meningococcal disease occur on college campuses each year, and 5 to 15 students will die as a result. Evidence shows 70% to 80% of cases in the college age group are caused by serogroup C, W‐135, or Y, which are potentially vaccine preventable. 46 One could extrapolate that this recommendation would hold whether the student was entering college in the United States or abroad. However, national recommendations differ according to the indicated age groups and of the vaccine. as vaccines are country recommendations should be Recently, the Canadian Committee to Advise on Tropical Medicine and Travel issued guidance on the and recommendations for meningococcal disease vaccination in travelers. In the guidelines recommend a to the to Vaccination should be considered for any individuals traveling to a region of meningococcal disease caused by one of the in the include not only the African meningitis belt countries guidelines that the dry season from country to country and the time to to but also those countries in sub‐Saharan Africa the traditional meningitis belt where recent epidemics have including the and The guidelines also recommend vaccination for the groups of travelers who may have prolonged close contact with the local population in these areas, but specify this may include and those public In to areas with active vaccination may also be for travelers to areas with disease including industrialized where sporadic cases of disease have been reported in the previous 6 In developed countries, travelers should the recommendations of the Although vaccination against serogroup with a vaccine is required for all Canadian CATMAT that this vaccination does not to individuals traveling to destinations where disease due to other is serogroup is due to this risk, and the preferred vaccine is a glycoconjugate quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine due to its polysaccharide vaccines including longer of of hyporesponsiveness with and possible of carriage For the of travelers, those not to Saudi Arabia or those not entering college where vaccination is required in the United the to is based essentially on an of the risk to the individual of developing disease of becoming a carrier of This must account for destination, and of potential and background health of the traveler (Figure Because meningococcal vaccines are associated with few events and these need to be vaccination for travelers. = = Kingdom of Saudi UK = United US = United = visiting friends and vaccination should be recommended for all travelers visiting destinations with outbreaks or epidemic that be, except those who have been vaccinated within the past 3 years. There are that can on active areas, such as developed by a As most groups recommend vaccination against meningococcal disease for at some travelers with destinations in the African meningitis belt. There is whether this recommendation should be limited to the dry season, by various as from to June or only December to 8 or in of the no to be in the WHO and 44 experts also consider parts of the Rift Valley in Africa, including parts of and to as many risks as the traditional meningitis but not the destinations in Recommendations may also differ based on risk of to meningococcal disease in the high‐risk countries as in the A meningococcal vaccine that all is for travelers to the African meningitis belt due to the need to against that disease in the the general factors, we must also consider that personal living and and social behavior a or for (eg, in refugee may be at higher In the African meningitis any health should consider not only the of but also whether there will be close contact to the local population in the the and type of public in dormitories or similar may an increased risk of transmission, and meningococcal vaccination at to be Finally, factors need to be into There is that, for persons with and some with or should meningococcal vaccination regardless of This factor is and a is an for vaccination in such however, infection is not an for meningococcal vaccination, such patients these patients may only have received a vaccine against serogroup and may quadrivalent Some health care will also consider that children are at higher risk of that travelers may be and at higher risk of As with many other immunization in the general population, the of vaccinating travelers is to both the individual from meningococcal disease and society from its In of the large variety of against all vaccine‐preventable is and therefore meningococcal vaccines are to be preferred vaccines for travelers. meningococcal glycoconjugate vaccines should be preferred polysaccharide vaccines due to their in terms of in of immunologic longer of apparent of hyporesponsiveness with repeat and in carriage of N 43 vaccines are particularly considering that the of immunization in travelers is to the risk of disease in the individual as well as the of transmission to and the international spread of At there are two glycoconjugate meningococcal vaccines that against disease caused by C, W‐135, and for use in individuals aged to 55 one also to Although these vaccines are and well remain in our against meningococcal disease. There currently is no vaccine that against of N meningitidis serogroup which is a of meningococcal disease outbreaks and epidemics in many regions in the the of the serogroup in recent years, in must be as there is no vaccine for Finally, there is no vaccine currently indicated for against meningococcal disease in 2 years of However, there is for the future. A glycoconjugate meningococcal vaccine is now in various countries that can be from the age of 2 against serogroup B are in national travel recommendations may travel with an to meningococcal vaccination as a to and spread of disease by International is has for and on for attending for from and

O. V. Kazarin

Commitment schemes, secret sharing schemes, interactive zero-knowledge proofs which underlie the offered interactive secrete sharing schemes are considered. Such schemes are one of the main computing primitives in the theory of secure computations. Base elements of the theory of secure computations and schemes of construction of synchronous verifiable secrete sharing as schemes of secure function evaluation are resulted.

Lifeng Sang

A sensor network typically refers to a collection of sensor nodes equipped with sensing, communication and processing capabilities. It brings an opportunity to solve many difficult problems including real time monitoring, tracking, and controlling. While the applications of sensor networking become many and varied, security has always been one of the major concerns in real deployments. In this dissertation, we design physical primitives for secure communication in wireless sensor networks, and develop a wireless security framework to provide conventional security services. We investigate the feasibility of achieving perfect secrecy and information authenticity without shared secrets via two physical primitives: (i) cooperative jamming primitive, where we introduce a secure coding problem in which not only the sender but also the receiver participates in the coding. In essence, the receiver’s role is to selectively jam the sender’s transmission at the level of bits, bytes, or packets. We then design a class of secure codes, called “dialog codes”, for diverse channel models and receiver models. (ii) spatial verification primitive, where we exploit the spatial signature induced by the radio communications of a node on its neighboring nodes, and design a spatial primitive that robustly and efficiently validates the authenticity of the source of messages. To address trust initialization, we propose a zero knowledge proof alternative that allows bootstrapping trust among individuals in a distributed way.

Pablo Andrés García, Igor Santos

As the use of Internet grows beyond all boundaries, the number of menaces rises to become subject of concern and increasing research. Against this, Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDS) monitor local networks to separate legitimate from dangerous behaviours. According to their capabilities and goals, NIDS are divided into misuse detection systems (which aim to detect well-known attacks) and anomaly detection systems (which aim to detect zero-day attacks). So far, no system to our knowledge combines advantages of both without any of their disadvantages. Moreover, the use of historical data for analysis or sequential adaptation is usually ignored, missing in this way the possibility of anticipating the behaviour of the target system. ESIDE-Depian, a Bayesian-networks-based misuse and anomaly detection system. In another work, we detailed the composition of the Bayesian network, its training methodology and showed general performance results. Here we have focused on evaluating the integration of misuse and anomaly detection. To this end, we have adopted Snort (a well-known misuse detector) as misuse detector trainer so the Bayesian Network of five experts is able to react against both misuse and anomalies. The Bayesian experts are devoted to the analysis of different network protocol aspects and obtain the common knowledge model by means of separated Snort-driven automated learning process Since ESIDE-Depian has passed the experiments brilliantly, it is possible to conclude that ESIDE-Depian using of Bayesian Networking concepts allows to confirm an excellent basis for paradigm unifying Network Intrusion Detection, providing not only stable Misuse Detection but also effective Anomaly Detection capabilities, with one only flexible knowledge representation model and a well-proofed inference and adaptation bunch of methods. On the other hand, the Bayesian approach also enables to implement powerful features over it, such as Dynamic-Bayesian-Network-based full representation of time, in order to accomplish totally-characterised connection tracking and low level chronological event correlation, or explanation tracking of the inferred cause-effect reasoning processes. Furthermore, contrary to other approaches such as Neural Networks, Bayesian networks allow administrative managing of inner information structures, so specific relationships among packet detection parameters and final conclusion can be explained, in a white-box manner. Moreover, it is not only possible to recover reasoning information, but also to act on both Bayesian network

Gary Gaddis

In 2000, the first Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference was convened. The topic, “Errors in Emergency Medicine,” was interposed between two well-known Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports of direct relevance: To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System1 (1999) and Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century2 (2001). This foreshadowed the great degree of relevance and timeliness that would characterize future consensus conferences, each of which has as its primary goal the development of a research agenda that will guide the science of the topic at hand. This year, Academic Emergency Medicine convened its 11th consensus conference, “Beyond Regionalization: Integrated Networks of Emergency Care,” in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine in Phoenix, Arizona. The proceedings will appear in the December issue of this journal. In this fashion, another timely research agenda will be developed, refined, and disseminated. These consensus conferences have not occurred in a vacuum. They have, to a demonstrable degree, had their intended effect of stimulating research. This month’s issue of the journal is the first to be devoted primarily to dissemination of research and concepts that have grown from prior consensus conferences. There is every reason to believe that a new and useful tradition has been established. The topics of the prior AEM consensus conferences have been: 2000: Errors in Emergency Medicine 2001: The Unraveling Safety Net 2002: Assuring Quality 2003: Disparities in Emergency Care 2004: Emergency Medicine Information Technology 2005: Ethical Conduct of Resuscitation Research 2006: The Science of Surge 2007: Knowledge Translation in Emergency Medicine: Establishing a Research Agenda and Guide Map for Evidence Uptake 2008: The Science of Simulation in Health Care: Defining and Developing Clinical Expertise 2009: Public Health in the Emergency Department: Surveillance, Screening, and Intervention 2010: Beyond Regionalization: Integrated Networks of Emergency Care A number of the consensus conferences have received significant financial support from Canadian, American federal, other public, and various private sources. Focusing on the conferences of 2007, 2008, and 2009 is illustrative. The 2007 conference received financial support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and among the featured speakers who took time from their busy schedules to join us in Chicago was Carolyn Clancy, the director of the AHRQ since 2003. Support also came from the National Center for Research Resources, an organization promoting the Clinical and Translational Science Awards program within the United States National Institutes of Health, and the Knowledge Translation Workshops and Symposia Grant Program of the Canadian Institutes of Health.3 The 2008 conference received primary financial support from AHRQ, the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, MedEdPORTAL (an electronic publication of the American Association of Medical Colleges), and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Over 30 other medical organizations and academic departments nationwide provided smaller degrees of support. In addition, unrestricted educational grants were received from major manufacturers of medical simulator hardware and software.4 The 2009 conference was primarily supported by a grant from AHRQ and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health, with secondary support from the National Institute of Mental Health; the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA); “Join Together” of the Boston University School of Public Health; and the Departments of Emergency Medicine of Boston University, Brown University, Emory University, George Washington University, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, the University of Michigan, and Yale University. This conference featured participation from Dr. Richard Denisco from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Dr. Ralph Hingson from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Dr. Amy Goldstein from the National Institute of Mental Health, Dr. James Heffelfinger from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Richard Saitz from Boston University, and Dr. Jack Stein, director of SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.5 Given the significant and continuing financial support of the agencies and foundations that have supported our consensus conferences, it seems prudent to provide them with proof that their efforts have been followed by meaningful responses to the numerous calls for research contained within the consensus conference summary statements and proceedings. In other words, this issue of our journal can be thought of as the first installment of a series of “itemized receipts” that will document how the financial support provided to enable the consensus conferences has been worthwhile. The first several consensus conferences did not enjoy such external financial support, but as the size and scope of the sessions grew, so did the need for funding. Our journal will continue to present these annual consensus conferences into the foreseeable future, and they will require the expenditure of significant resources of time and finances. To be able to document, from the pages of our own journal, that prior consensus conferences have had the desired effect of stimulating relevant research may increase the likelihood that the organizers of future conferences can continue to achieve similar external financial support. Looking forward, it is hoped that an even greater number of research efforts will be inspired by our consensus conferences and that much of that research will appear in our journal. It must be noted that not all of this month’s articles were submitted by authors who had the express intent that they appear in this special consensus conference follow-up issue. The Associate Editors and Senior Associate Editors, as well as Kathleen Seal, our Technical Editor, have referred a number of manuscripts submitted to the journal, but not submitted specifically for appearance in this issue, to the attention of the consensus conference guest editors group. In other words, our work group had to “prime the pump” somewhat. It is hoped that this will not be necessary in the future and that a greater number of manuscripts will be submitted with the goal that they appear in the consensus conference follow-up proceedings. A suggestion going forward relates to the probability that the research agendas set forth at a given consensus conference may eventually become “dated.” Toward that end, it is possible that future consensus conference follow-up issues might only accept manuscripts inspired by consensus conferences of the past 3 to 5 years. This issue contains a total of 15 manuscripts, with the following representation: 2002: one manuscript 2003: two manuscripts 2004: two manuscripts 2005: zero manuscripts 2006: two manuscripts 2007: three manuscripts 2008: one manuscripts 2009: four manuscripts I would be remiss not to thank several people without whom this edition of the journal would not have been possible. The Guest Assistant Editors, who functioned most capably as decision editors, included Gail D’Onofrio, Nicole Deiorio, Lynne Richardson, and Terri Schmidt. I am indebted to them for their efforts. It would be misleading to state that this process evolved exactly as first envisioned, and I must also thank these Guest Assistant Editors for their patience with the evolving processes. David Cone gave me the opportunity to more truly understand the extreme degree of knowledge and organization he brings to his role as Editor-in-Chief. Finally, but most importantly, I thank Kathleen Seal for her most capable guidance and patience. I have learned to an even greater degree than before what a valuable resource she is to our journal.

William G. Lycan

Quine (1966) offered his classic characterization of the notion of paradox, a taxonomy for paradoxical arguments and some vocabulary for discussing them. In this article, I shall generalize Quine’s taxonomy and defend a simpler characterization. The simpler characterization will have the virtue or the flaw (as might be) of making paradox a matter of degree. For Quine, a paradox is an apparently successful argument having as its conclusion a statement or proposition that seems obviously false or absurd. That conclusion he calls ‘the proposition of’ the paradox in question. What is paradoxical is of course that, if the argument is indeed successful as it seems to be, its conclusion must be true. On this view, to resolve the paradox is (i) to show either that (and why) despite appearances the conclusion is true after all, or that the argument is fallacious, and (ii) if the former, to explain away the deceptive appearances. Quine divides paradoxes into three groups. A ‘veridical’ paradox is one whose ‘proposition’ or conclusion is in fact true despite its air of absurdity. We decide that a paradox is veridical when we look carefully at the argument and it convinces us, i.e. it manages to show us how it is that the conclusion is true after all and appearances to the contrary were misleading. Quine’s two main examples of this are the puzzle of Frederic in The Pirates of Penzance (who has reached the age of 21 after passing only five birthdays) and the Barber Paradox, which Quine considers simply a sound proof that there can be no such barber as is described.1 A ‘falsidical’ paradox is one whose ‘proposition’ or conclusion is indeed obviously false or self-contradictory, but which contains a fallacy that is detectably responsible for delivering the absurd conclusion. We decide that a paradox is falsidical when we look carefully at the argument and spot the fallacy. Quine’s leading example here is De Morgan’s trick argument for the proposition that 2 = 1.2 Oddly, Quine does not mention a third related category, the obverse of a veridical paradox: the argument in question could have an obviously false or self-contradictory conclusion, yet rest on no error of reasoning however subtle – so long as it has a premiss that looks for all the world true until we let the argument itself show us that, and how, the premiss is false after all. For example, the Barber is classified as veridical because its conclusion is the truth that there is no barber who shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves; but turn it on its head, so that its conclusion is rather the absurdity that there is a barber who both does and does not shave her-/himself. There is still no fallacy, but only the innocent-seeming premiss that there is a barber who shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves.3 We might call this sort of paradox, for want of better, ‘premiss-flawed.’ Finally (returning to Quine), an ‘antinomy’ is an intractable paradox, one that we cannot see how to resolve in either of the foregoing two ways: the argument does not succeed in convincing us that its conclusion is true-despite-appearances (often because the conclusion is overtly contradictory or otherwise incoherent, yet we can find no fallacious move in the argument; nor is there a premiss that is shown false-despite-appearances. Antinomies, Quine says, ‘bring on the crises in thought’ (5); they show the need of drastic revision in our customary ways of looking at things. My main problem with Quine’s taxonomy is its heavy dependence on the current state of one’s knowledge and on one’s ability to figure things out. Let me explain. All a valid deductive argument shows, just in virtue of its validity, is that a certain set of propositions is internally inconsistent. If all we know about an argument is that it is valid, we do not thereby have even the slightest reason to believe that the conclusion C is true, even though doubtless the person who constructed the argument was reasoning, from P1, P2, … taken as premisses, to C. For unless we are independently moved to accept those premisses, their jointly implying C is of little interest; and even if we do already accept them, seeing that they imply C may make us reconsider one or more of them, rather than inclining us any the more strongly to endorse C as well.4 In this sense, an argument has no intrinsic direction; its direction has been imparted to it rhetorically by a speaker who has recruited it for a particular dialectical purpose. Intrinsically, the argument is just the inconsistent set {P1, P2, …, ∼C}. The relevance of that (I hope uncontroversial) point for Quine is that, faced with an apparently inconsistent set of plausible statements, anyone may choose which of the statements’ denials to single out as ‘the proposition’ or ‘conclusion’ of the corresponding paradoxical argument, either arbitrarily or on a ground of some sort. (Remember that a paradox in Quine’s sense has an already appalling conclusion, so there is not initially any epistemic reason, as opposed to expository reasons, why the conclusion appears as such rather than being negated and taken as a premiss.) And given a paradoxical argument, two theorists might well disagree on whether the paradox is veridical, because they may disagree as to which component propositions are more plausible than which; in particular, one theorist may find the argument veridical while the other finds the ‘conclusion’’s denial more plausible than one of the ‘premisses’. In Quine’s examples of veridical and falsidical arguments, the comparison of plausibility is sufficiently obvious and uncontroversial that in fact no one would dispute his judgements about them. But we should bear in mind that that is because we all think roughly alike on issues of Leap Year and birthdays and barbers and arithmetic; a person who for whatever reason had different background beliefs and very different interests might resist Quine’s judgements. In short, to classify a paradox as veridical is to assume that one’s own preferred way of resolving the paradox is the correct way. More generally, then, a Paradox (I mark my own proposed usage with the capital letter) is an inconsistent set of propositions, each of which is very plausible.5 And to resolve a Paradox is to decide on some principled grounds which of the propositions to abandon. One might then think of saying that when that decision is comparatively easy, we could call the Paradox either veridical or falsidical, depending on which of the component propositions have been designated as ‘premisses’ and which has been denied by way of ‘conclusion’, though when the choice of culprit is difficult or controversial, we call the Paradox an antinomy, as Quine does. But that translation of Quine’s terminology into mine would not be accurate, for in regard to my notion of Paradox, Quine’s ‘veridical’ and ‘falsidical’ are not natural opposites. A Paradox would count as veridical in the proposed new sense just in case (a) one of its members turns out to be clearly less plausible than the others, and (b) the Paradox is already (for whatever reason) cast in the form of a deductive argument having the culprit’s denial as its conclusion. But there would be no such thing as a falsidical Paradox, for a falsidical argument in Quine’s sense is fallacious, and the apparent inconsistency corresponding to it is not real. In my terms, then, a falsidical paradox in Quine’s sense is only an apparent Paradox.6 But on my view the ‘veridical’/‘falsidical’ distinction really loses its point. Rather, there are inconsistent sets containing identifiable culprits – call those ‘tractable’ Paradoxes – and there are the antinomies. It is better just to drop Quine’s terms. There is a further complication. I have defined ‘Paradox’ in terms of actual inconsistency, namely, as a set of propositions that is in fact inconsistent. But (a) a set can be inconsistent without anyone’s knowing that it is or even being able to know that it is; and more importantly, (b) we may have reason to think that a set is inconsistent when actually it is not. Case (b), Quine’s falsidical again, is not uncommon; we have some plausible premisses and we use what seems to be a sound principle of reasoning to deduce our absurdity, but in fact the absurdity does not follow and the fault is in the principle of reasoning rather than in any of the premisses. (De Morgan divides through by a number that is covertly equal to 0; elsewhere (Lycan 1993, 2001) I have argued that when one is reasoning in English rather than in a truth-functional calculus, reliance on the rule Modus Ponens can lead from perfectly acceptable premisses to contradictory conclusions and so must be rejected.) Now, to circumvent this complication and keep the terminology neat, let us dispense with every even faintly dubious principle of reasoning. That is, let us require that for a Paradox to be worthy of its capital ‘P’, it must be formulated truth-functionally, with every initially non-truth-functional principle of reasoning replaced by that principle’s corresponding material conditional inserted as a member of the inconsistent set that constitutes the Paradox in question; thus we shall make every possibly controversial inference principle explicit. And, owing to the semantical completeness of the propositional calculus, any Paradox is provably as well as model-theoretically inconsistent.7 It must be conceded that, in at least three ways, even the propositional calculus is ‘controversial’. First, there is the question of relevant implication. Relevance logicians8 brand the truth-functional calculus as libertine, charging that some of the inferences it sanctions (notably Disjunctive Syllogism) introduce informational irrelevancies and are therefore not ones that English speakers would or should make. But however we feel about this as a complaint against the analysis of English or any other natural language in truth-functional terms, it does not apply to my idea of reconstructing paradoxes into Paradoxes; I am here using the propositional calculus and its libertine notion of validity only as a tool for strict truth-preservation in inferential moves between propositions that are already formulated in the truth-functional idiom. Disjunctive Syllogism may not be a valid principle in the logic of English (any more than are Antecedent-Strengthening and Modus Ponens), but it is valid trivially and by definition for the tilde and the vel. Second, paraconsistent systems have been offered as rivals to standard contradiction-shunning logic,9 and in particular dialetheists led by Graham Priest (1987, 1995) have maintained that there are actually true contradictions. Indeed, Priest cites some familiar paradoxes as examples; there is nothing to ‘resolve,’ because the contradictions simply are true. But this view is no opponent of my characterization of a Paradox. It merely takes a refreshing attitude toward Paradoxes once they are identified. Third, Quine, Putnam and others have suggested that even elementary logic may be brought into question by exotic scientific developments such as in quantum mechanics. Once again we must distinguish between logical laws intended as representing the logic of English and the theorems of a formal system whose truth-theoretic semantics has been officially and stipulatively assigned. My notion of Paradox is tied to the latter, and has no implications regarding the former. But if(!) I understand quantum logicians correctly, they mean to impugn even standard propositional logic understood as formulated in terms of the traditional truth-defined connectives. Depending on one’s view of analyticity,10 and once we have distinguished the matter of epistemic revisability from the metaphysical issue of truth by virtue of stipulated meaning, this may not make sense. But even if it does and we are thereby forced to admit a notion of falsidical Paradox after all, at least my format will make the point of contention as explicit as anything could. Two objections have been made to me; oddly (but fortunately) they oppose each other. The first11 is that most or at least many people think of paradoxes as arguments, hence, contrary to my conception, as being intrinsically directional, from premisses to conclusion. It may be that many people do so; and that way of thinking is well represented by Quine’s model. But I have pointed out that arguments themselves are not intrinsically directional, save by prior commitments of their proponents. To repeat, the speaker who has deployed the argument has chosen to present one or more propositions as its premisses and infer another proposition as its conclusion, but that is rhetoric; we can equally argue from the ‘conclusion’s’ negation to that of one of the ‘premisses’, and nothing about the argument itself tells us which should be preferred. The second objection is that paradigmatic paradoxes are single sentences or statements such as the Liar, hence not inconsistent sets of propositions (and, n.b., not arguments either).12 Whether or not the Liar is paradigmatic, it is a single sentence rather than an inconsistent set, and it does suggest mild readjustment of our formula. I said that a Paradox is an inconsistent set of propositions ‘each of which is very plausible,’ but on its face the Liar cannot be so described. It can be expressed as an inconsistent set, {‘(L) is true,’ ‘(L) is false,’ ‘(L) is either true or false but not both’}, but none of those three propositions has great intuitive appeal. What is true is at best that each of the propositions has a strong argument in its defence.13 Those three arguments have premisses, such as ‘What (L) says is that (L) is false’ and ‘If S says that P then S is true iff P,’ so a Paradox as I originally defined it would feature those undefended premisses, not the lemmas as above. So, either we can say that the Paradox is that more complicated set, which is not very natural (also, we would get different versions depending on exactly how the ultimate premisses were formulated), or we can liberalize the definition by replacing ‘each of which is very plausible’ by ‘each of which either is very plausible in its own right or has a seemingly conclusive argument for it’. If we stick by my notion of Paradox, we will regard the distinction between ‘tractable’ Paradoxes and antinomies as theory-infected and somewhat presumptuous, but above all a distinction of degree. There are actually two matters of degree involved: the disparity in plausibility between a putative culprit proposition and the other, more plausible propositions in the set, and the average degree of plausibility all around. The higher both of these degrees go, the more readily we will see a Paradox as intractable; we get a real antinomy when the first is near zero and the second is still high. If the second is low, we have only a mild Paradox, and I am loath to call it antinomic, but only an array of competing theories.14

Matteo Maffei, Giulio Malavolta, Manuel Reinert, Dominique Schröder

The existing (election) voting systems, e.g., representative democracy, have many limitations and often fail to serve the best interest of the people in collective decision making. To address this issue, the concept of liquid democracy has been emerging as an alternative decision-making model to make better use of "the wisdom of crowds". Very recently, a few liquid democracy implementations, e.g. Google Votes and Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO), are released; however, those systems only focus on the functionality aspect, as no privacy/anonymity is considered. In this work, we, for the first time, provide a rigorous study of liquid democracy under the Universal Composability (UC) frame- work. In the literature, liquid democracy was achieved via two separate stages -- delegation and voting. We propose an efficient liquid democracy e-voting scheme that uni es these two stages. At the core of our design is a new voting concept called statement voting, which can be viewed as a natural extension of the conventional voting approaches. We remark that our statement voting can be extended to enable more complex voting and generic ledger-based non-interactive multi-party computation. We believe that the statement voting concept opens a door for constructing a new class of e-voting schemes.

Gilles Barthe, Daniel Hedin, Santiago Zanella-Béguelin, Benjamin Grégoire · 5 authors

Zero-knowledge proofs have a vast applicability in the domain of cryptography, stemming from the fact that they can be used to force potentially malicious parties to abide by the rules of a protocol, without forcing them to reveal their secrets. Σ-protocols are a class of zero-knowledge proofs that can be implemented efficiently and that suffice for a great variety of practical applications. This paper presents a first machine-checked formalization of a comprehensive theory of Σ-protocols. The development includes basic definitions, relations between different security properties that appear in the literature, and general composability theorems. We show its usefulness by formalizing—and proving the security—of concrete instances of several well-known protocols. The formalization builds on CertiCrypt, a framework that provides support to reason about cryptographic systems in the Coq proof assistant, and that has been previously used to formalize security proofs of encryption and signature schemes.

Sonam Samkang, Paolo Dorigo

Ein E- Voting System muss einerseits sicher sein andererseits muss es gewährleisten dass jede Wahl berücksichtigt und anonym ausgewertet wird.
\nDieses Projekt befasst sich mit der Aufgabe, ein solch sicheres, stabiles und transparentes Wahlsystem anzubieten. Das Ziel der Arbeit ist es, einen Web Client zu entwickeln, der mit Hilfe einer Big- Integer Library und JavaScript Funktionen das für E- Voting geeignete Damgård- Jurik Kryptosystem zu implementiert. Weiter galt es, die Verfügbarkeit von echten Zufallszahlen in JavaScript abzuklären. Die generierten Datensätze sind in der JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) an den Server weiterzuleiten. In einem optionalen Teil der Arbeit sollte die Wohlgeformtheit der verschlüsselten Stimmzettel mittels eines Zero-Knowledge Proofs Protokoll nachgewiesen werden können.
\nDer verwendete asymmetrische Damgård- Jurik Verschlüsselungsalgorithmus, hat die homomorphe Eigenschaft, dass die Multiplikation chiffrierter Werte gleich der verschlüsselten Summe der entsprechenden Klartexte entspricht. Da nur das aufkumulierte Schlussresultat der Abstimmung entschlüsselt wird, ist dadurch die Anonymität der einzelnen Stimmen gewährleistet. Um die Gültigkeit eines verschlüsselten Wahlzettels zu überprüfen, wird ein Zero-Knowledge Proofs Protokoll verwendet. Da JavaScript nur mit Zahlen bis 53 Bit rechnen kann, ist für die Berechnungen eine JavaScript Big- Integer Library notwendig. Es wurden verschiedene Bibliotheken getestet und im Detail ausgewertet. Ebenfalls wurde die Möglichkeit echte Zufallszahlen plattformunabhängig zu generieren abgeklärt.
\nDie Wahl der Big-Integer Library ist auf jsbn.js der Stanford University gefallen und für die Generierung von Zufallszahlen auf jscrypto.js, welche durch die Auswertung von Mausbewegungen Entropie gewinnt. Der implementierte JavaScript Client verschlüsselt erfolgreich Stimmzettel mittels Damgård- Jurik Verschlüsselungsalgorithmus und leitet das Chiffrat mit zusätzlichen, für den Zero-Knowledge Proofs Protokoll notwendigen Parametern im JSON Format an den Server weiter, der die empfangenen Daten auf ihre Wohlgeformtheit prüft. Die Messungen haben ergeben, dass der Google Chrome Browser am optimalsten mit den angewendeten Libraries läuft. Bei der Verwendung eines 1024 Bit RSA Modulus benötigt der Google Chrome Browser 1.7 Sekunden für die Damgård- Jurik Verschlüsselung und zusätzlich 8.8 Sekunden für die Generierung der Zero-Knowledge Proofs Protokoll notwendigen Parametern.

Gennady Lyubeznik

Let k be a field, let R be a ring of polynomials in a finite number of variables over k, let D be the ring of k-linear differential operators of R and let f be a non-zero element of R. It is well-known that R_f, with its natural D-module structure, has finite length in the category of D-modules. We give a characteristic-free proof of this fact. To the best of our knowledge this is the first characteristic-free proof.

Sławomir Grzonkowski

Recently we have observed a growing demand for secure technologies for e-commerce that do not put customers at risk of identity theft. We have also experienced the advent of Web 2.0 which has led to new business models and which has changed the way users interact with the Web. This thesis proposes a set of strategies and enhancements towards providing improved security and privacy in such new settings. We introduce a novel concept: Fair Rights Management (FRM). It can be classified as a usage control solution. FRM enables a flexible way of managing digital content. There was a need to provide additional security extensions to keep such a flexible model applicable. Thus, in our approach we take advantage of trust obtained from social networks. This is also the reason why we created an efficient zero-knowledge proof protocol that is lightweight enough to be deployed within existing web-applications. The proposed protocol is also successfully integrated with Semantic Web architecture and associated components. It enables practical Web and mobile applications which employ trust-based transactions as part of their workflow. This core contribution overcomes various disadvantages of prior art and enables a range of new applications and potentially new business models. We show that compared to existing Usage Control Models (UCON) (i) FRM is a step towards fair use in the digital world and we also argue that our approach is enforced by law; (ii) the participants of the proposed solution do not put their privacy at risk. Our research shows that existing infrastructure is sufficient to support ZKP-based solutions; and thus, it is feasible to offer the users enhanced privacy within existing deployed solutions.

Carrie Printz

Many cancer centers reach out to their elected officials by meeting with them on Capitol Hill and inviting them to tour their institutions. But few go as far as the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (OSUCCC). At this National Cancer Institute-designated center based in Columbus, Ohio, elected officials and their staffs take on the roles of patients, researchers, or healthcare providers to gain a more personalized understanding of the importance of translational research and its impact on patient care. “At the end of their visit, we have roundtable discussions, and the feedback is always, ‘we never knew how complex cancer care and research is’,” says Jennifer Carlson, director of government relations for OSUCCC. As further proof of the program's success, legislators discussing cancer-related legislation at government hearings have referred to their participation in Project Cancer Education and the knowledge they gained from it, Carlson notes. “This hands-on program literally takes policymakers from the bench to the bedside and helps them understand some of the challenges we face,” she says, adding that it also helps illustrate some of the lost opportunities that can occur with lack of government investment or support of medical research and care. Because Project Cancer Education has been so successful in Ohio, OSUCCC Director Michael Caligiuri, MD, who was recently elected president of the Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI), proposed making it available to member centers across the country. The program is “the cornerstone of our advocacy efforts this year,” he notes. “We have had amazing success in seeing important anticancer legislation move forward in Ohio because of the impact Project Cancer Education has had on our elected officials,” Dr. Caligiuri says. “We are asking the community of American cancer centers through the AACI to implement this best practice at their centers because it will help to justify the greater investment in cancer research and make our elected officials and staff aware of why our cause is such an urgent one.” Participants in Project Cancer Education learn about the challenges of cancer care through role-playing scenarios. Carlson is chairing the committee within the AACI that is developing a toolkit based on her center's existing collateral materials for all member centers to refine and adopt to fit their specific needs. They plan to have the materials available this spring. Additionally, they are working with the National Cancer Institute to roll out a similar program for congressional committee staffers who are based in Washington, DC. The toolkits will include different “tracks,” such as a patient scenario or a researcher scenario. The program can range from 2 hours, geared mainly toward the elected officials, to a half-day or full day, which is designed for their staff members. Participants also receive graduation certificates and pose for a photograph, which is later E-mailed to them to reinforce the program's messages. The program that supported your research has been eliminated because of federal budget cuts. Your second- and third-year budgets have been zeroed out. The institutional review board determined that you did not plan to have enough research nurses for your proposed phase 1 study. Wait 6 months and try again. Due to cuts in federal funding line for your grant, your budget has been reduced by 30% for the next 3 years. Visits to cancer care and research facilities allow participants to see the intricacies of discovery and treatment firsthand. Participants encounter positive results too, such as, “The drug you developed is ready to come to market and is expected to bring in large profits to the university during its patent lifetime. The new science building on campus will be named in your honor.” In the patient scenario, some of the challenges participants learn about are lack of insurance coverage for clinical-trial patient-care costs, the importance of proper insurance authorization for specific treatments, and the intensive recovery that occurs with an allogeneic marrow transplant for acute myeloid leukemia. In some cases, policymakers get a chance to talk with patients participating in clinical trials who are living proof of research's value, Carlson notes. She is confident that cancer centers across the country will find the program beneficial. “By partnering with our elected officials, we can take cancer care to the next level,” she says. The Ohio legislative cancer education program, Project Cancer Education, is set to roll out nationwide. The program gives elected officials a chance to walk in the shoes of researchers and patients. Legislators and their staffs experience firsthand the challenges faced by cancer centers. Cancer centers will receive toolkits from AACI to help tailor their own programs.

智幸 山上, Tomoyuki Yamakami

研究成果の概要 (英文) ：Quantum communication has been developed over the past 30 years based on a novel theory of quantum mechanics.To establish secure quantum communication, we need safe and efficient quantum cryptosystems.From a more realistic viewpoint, we discuss quantum cryptographic primitives whose bases are a more realistic model of quantum devices.In particular, we study the strengths and weaknesses of quantum zero-knowledge proof systems.We also study the quantum list decoding of error-correcting codes and the notion of advice given to the quantum devices. 交付決定額

Elli Androulaki, Binh Vo, Steven M. Bellovin

No abstract is available for this record.

Atsuko Miyaji, Mohammad Shahriar Rahman

No abstract is available for this record.

Kevin Curran, Eric Nichols, Ermai Xie, Roy Harper

BACKGROUND: Software to help control diabetes is currently an embryonic market with the main activity to date focused mainly on the development of noncomputerized solutions, such as cardboard calculators or computerized solutions that use "flat" computer models, which are applied to each person without taking into account their individual lifestyles. The development of true, mobile device-driven health applications has been hindered by the lack of tools available in the past and the sheer lack of mobile devices on the market. This has now changed, however, with the availability of pocket personal computer handsets. METHOD: This article describes a solution in the form of an intelligent neural network running on mobile devices, allowing people with diabetes access to it regardless of their location. Utilizing an easy to learn and use multipanel user interface, people with diabetes can run the software in real time via an easy to use graphical user interface. The neural network consists of four neurons. The first is glucose. If the user's current glucose level is within the target range, the glucose weight is then multiplied by zero. If the glucose level is high, then there will be a positive value multiplied to the weight, resulting in a positive amount of insulin to be injected. If the user's glucose level is low, then the weights will be multiplied by a negative value, resulting in a decrease in the overall insulin dose. RESULTS: A minifeasibility trial was carried out at a local hospital under a consultant endocrinologist in Belfast. The short study ran for 2 weeks with six patients. The main objectives were to investigate the user interface, test the remote sending of data over a 3G network to a centralized server at the university, and record patient data for further proofing of the neural network. We also received useful feedback regarding the user interface and the feasibility of handing real-world patients a new mobile phone. Results of this short trial confirmed to a large degree that our approach (which also can be known as intensive insulinotherapy) has value and perhaps that our neural network approach has implications for future intelligent insulin pumps. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is no software available to tell people with diabetes how much insulin to inject in accordance with their lifestyle and individual inputs, which leads to adjustments in software predictions on the amount of insulin to inject. We have taken initial steps to supplement the knowledge and skills of health care professionals in controlling insulin levels on a daily basis using a mobile device for people who are less able to manage their disease, especially children and young adults.

Bogdan Cărbunar, Radu Sion

No abstract is available for this record.

Vipul Goyal, Abhishek Jain, Rafail Ostrovsky

No abstract is available for this record.

Kazi Md. Rokibul Alam, Shinsuke Tamura, Shuji Taniguchi, Tatsuro Yanase

This paper proposes a new electronic voting (e-voting) scheme that fulfills all the security requirements of e-voting i.e. privacy, accuracy, universal verifiability, fairness, receipt-freeness, incoercibility, dispute-freeness, robustness, practicality and scalability; usually some of which are found to be traded. When compared with other existing schemes, this scheme requires much more simple computations and weaker assumptions about trustworthiness of individual election authorities. The key mechanism is the one that uses confirmation numbers involved in individual votes to make votes verifiable while disabling all entities including voters themselves to know the linkages between voters and their votes. Many existing e-voting schemes extensively deploy zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) to achieve verifiability. However, ZKP is expensive and complicated. The confirmation numbers attain the verifiability requirement in a much more simple and intuitive way, then the scheme becomes scalable and practical.