[roenxi]

This might be reading too much in to minor drama at a diabetes conference. The gentleman in question could have gone to protest outside (and probably did).

The article linked doesn't even say what exactly they were protesting (beyond a rather vague "attacks on scientific research" which could mean a lot of things).

[adrian_b]

Their so-called "protest" was just distributing an article already published in the journal of the medical association to which this conference is attached, which probably discussed matters of interest for the attendance, like the future of research financing in this domain.

I can hardly think of a more peaceful form of protest, which only intended to make aware the participants about the content of the article. Those who were not interested presumably refused to take the article copy or did not read it.

Even on HN you can still see claims that USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences. This example shows clearly that this claim is false.

[roenxi]

I'm no doctor, but I suspect the conference organisers wanted the conference to focus on diabetes. Rather than exploring whether the USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences.

[JumpCrisscross]

> suspect the conference organisers wanted the conference to focus on diabetes

The article they were distributing is pretty clearly about diabetes. If the actions it describes continues, significant efforts towards treating and even curing diabetes will be lost.

[ciupicri]

> Just a year ago, in these very pages, we highlighted the many threats the current U.S. administration posed to the health of our nation (1). Since then, there have been actions by the administration that have caused grave health consequences, and their current approach will continue to do so.

It sounds to me like criticism of the government.

[JumpCrisscross]

> sounds to me like criticism of the government

The article is not a long read [1]. It describes how current policy is dismantling and destroying the research infrastructure for diabetes, infrastructure which has started or has already borne significant fruit. It encapsulates a criticism of the administration, and it’s definitely scathing, but it’s far from a partisan rant.

For example: “This CD3-directed monoclonal antibody has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prevent type 1 diabetes in people aged 8 years and older with stage 2 type 1 diabetes. As a result, we are a major step closer to a cure for type 1 diabetes. With the potential to prevent the disease, screening programs for type 1 diabetes are being initiated worldwide.

…

Two examples are the Human Islet Research Network (HIRN) and the Integrated Islet Distribution Program (IIDP). HIRN aims to advance our understanding of how β-cells are lost in human type 1 diabetes and to find inventive strategies to protect or replace β-cells in people with the disease.”

The funding for that research is being cut. If you have a loved one with or at risk of getting diabetes, this could be the difference between vastly different levels of quality of life and years of life versus death.

[1] https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Mi...

[roenxi]

> The funding for that research is being cut. If you have a loved one with, or at risk of getting, diabetes, this could be the difference between vastly different levels of quality of life and years of life versus death.

So just to jump back to the "The article they were distributing is pretty clearly about diabetes" thing mere comments ago - this seems to be about budgets and administrative matters. Those are generic concerns. In fact, in my unhumble opinion, this looks a lot like the sort of document written by someone with poor marketing skills worried that their budget is going to get cut in the near future. Especially since the conference organisers didn't think there was special merit to it.

There isn't much (if any) research here. It can reasonably be said to be out of scope for a diabetes conference if the organisers don't want to include it. All of us would like a larger budget, we don't need to listen to other people present on the topic of how they also want larger budgets. That is a political topic.

[skywhopper]

If the government is actively working against diabetes research, then there is no way to say that without “criticizing” the government.

[brookst]

It was criticizing systematic anti-science decisions which lead to bad outcomes for diabetes research, and ultimately those with diabetes.

The idea that a science based defense of science is anti-government and therefore off limits for a conference is downright Soviet.

[throwaway173738]

Are you against criticism of the government by private organizations?

[ciupicri]

I'm for free speech, but ADA has released this press statement [1]:

> As a 501(c)(3) organization, the ADA has safeguards in place to ensure that it complies with all IRS regulations. This includes maintaining a strictly nonpartisan environment at all organizational events and functions while engaging across party affiliations to advance our mission. We have always, and will continue to welcome scientific inquiry, respectful dialogue, and diverse perspectives in the pursuit of better outcomes for people living with diabetes and obesity.

[1]: https://diabetes.org/newsroom/press-releases/american-diabet...

[wyldfire]

It's not like the article is indirectly related to the subject of the conference. It is critical of the government, but not in the "human rights abuses of this administration threaten us all" way (though even that seems reasonable to discuss).

Is it your position that if an article is critical of a world government it must not be discussed at a scientific conference? Or even "you should expect to get ejected from a conference if you criticize the host government"? Because believe it or not, that's not been a problem in the USA prior to Trump. And it runs contrary to how science should work.

[ciupicri]

If Adria Richards and PyCon can make a such fuss about a joke [1], then other conferences can do the same about current political events. I personally wouldn't mind or better said I wouldn't be offended because the topic might be boring for me.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donglegate

[MemoryHoleHQ]

It wasn't in any way an article, and much less an article about diabetes.

They were distributing an Opinion Piece which title was (yes, this is the full title): Misguided Brushes of a Pen Continue to Dismantle and Destroy Biomedical Research in the United States: We Can No Longer Afford Complacency and Fear. We Must All Act Now!

[wyldfire]

One of science's most critical roles is to inform policymakers. And if they can't do that job effectively then it's right and just to point out the problems preventing it. Scientific conferences that fear critiques of the government chill new scientific publications.

It's not like they were handing out "Trump sleeps during press events" posters. You should read the article they distributed, it's very relevant to the conference attendees.

[JumpCrisscross]

> One of science's most critical roles is to inform policymakers

Yup. From their article: “DCCT/EDIC revolutionized the approach to treating people with type 1 diabetes, establishing standards for glucose control and resulting in improved quality of life along with clinically significant reductions in the risk of diabetes complications and major adverse cardiovascular events.

After 44 years, it continues to provide new insights, including showing that in adults with type 1 diabetes, neurodegeneration is likely the result of non–Alzheimer disease mechanisms. DPP/DPPOS, which enrolled people with prediabetes, demonstrated the benefit of intensive lifestyle intervention and metformin in reducing the risk of developing diabetes. These findings led Congress to approve an amendment to the Social Security Act to establish the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program and provide lifestyle intervention services for eligible individuals.”

[skywhopper]

Yes, but this detail is crucial to continuing to make progress on diabetes treatment and research. So it’s actually more fundamental than anything else.

[866-RON-0-FEZ]

> Even on HN you can still see claims that USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences.

The first amendment applies to public spaces. Not private conferences which are invite-only. You're on an anti-U.S. tear in this discussion but lack understanding of the basics.

For the same reason I can't show up at your office and start handing out religious materials and/or pornography (take your pick) to everyone showing up for work and claim it's a free speech issue and my right to do so.

As someone else pointed out below, this exact argument was used to ban apps lacking "correct" moderation from the app stores a few years ago.

[embedding-shape]

> This might be reading too much in to minor drama at a diabetes conference.

Indeed, my view and perspective is built by a culmination of recent events, not based on a single event. The widespread self-censorship Americans currently engage in (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434091) is also a large part of it.

I don't have any "index of events" handy that could explain why I think the slope is so evident currently, but based on the ongoing journalistic suppression, individual self-censorship, centralization of control and power in governments and society together with lots of other smaller incidents like this one and others, makes it pretty clear to me at least.

[3eb7988a1663]

Conferences have dozens of people distributing pamphlets, papers, ads, and all manner of literature. To share a publication from an authoritative body with peers is a common action.

[Hizonner]

The conference invited Jay Bhattacharya (the NIH director), who I guarantee was not going to give a technical speech, since beyond an 30-year-old, never-professionally-used generic medical degree, he knows approximately dick about diabetes or anything relevant. These guys were handing out copies of an article outside that room. He didn't show and sent a substitute, who was surely going to sing the same song.

By letting NIH political operatives in, the ADA made the conference itself a political event.

> The article linked doesn't even say what exactly they were protesting (beyond a rather vague "attacks on scientific research" which could mean a lot of things).

It does mean a lot of things, and the Trump administration is doing roughly all of them. Sorry about your lack of basic knowledge of current events.

[st-keller]

“When Fascism came into power, most people were unprepared, both theoretically and practically. They were unable to believe that man could exhibit such propensities for evil, such lust for power, such disregard for the rights of the weak, or such yearning for submission. Only a few had been aware of the rumbling of the volcano preceding the outbreak.”

— Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom

[joemazerino]

It would be wonderful if conference attendees to ADA would stick to the ToS.

[tapoxi]

It's not clear how that was violated, since they're handing out an article from the ADA's own journal.

[throwaway173738]

Minitrue remake goodthink fullwise.