[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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> It can reasonably be said to be out of scope for a diabetes conference if the organisers don't want to include it

I’d agree with you if this happened at the journal level. It didn’t. The journal published it. Like, an astronomical conference paper describing why a new telescope design is a waste of money isn’t basic research, but it’s absolutely topical. (It could also reasonably be branded as political.)

The article is about the research infrastructure supporting diabetes research. If diabetes researchers aren’t allowed to comment on whether diabetes funding is working or wasteful in their own journals, or present their published journal findings at their own conferences, you’re not going to get any basic diabetes research.

> 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

It is. It’s also about diabetes. Debating which research avenues are more promising than others is absolutely political. It’s also at the heart of science. And frankly, informing fellow researchers and policymakers of the boring parts of the science is part of a scientist’s job.

Also, importantly, they aren’t asking for more budget in the article. They’re pointing out that the appropriated funds aren’t being delivered. They’re being literally misappropriated by OMB and HHS.

[tremon]

It can reasonably be said to be out of scope for a diabetes conference if the organisers don't want to include it

So the organisers of a conference can control the topics that its attendees want to talk about in the hallways of the venue? They don't have to extend any agency to the attendees, they're just dumb consumers here?

[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

[JumpCrisscross]

> If Adria Richards and PyCon can make a such fuss about a joke

Your takeaway from Donglegate was that Richards was in the right?

[wyldfire]

This is a false equivalence. "What constitutes appropriate humor" versus "Government silences dissent." Just because the Diabetes conference cited their code of conduct doesn't mean that's actually what this is about.

This is what people seem to get mixed up about the First Amendment to the US Constitution. These scientists were removed from the conference because they were highlighting the scientific role to push back against government censorship. Not because it wasn't germane to the conference, but in furtherance of the censorship itself. The US Government participated here indirectly via its chilling on scientific discourse.

Comments in this thread suggesting that "this is just some private actors" are mistaken. This is absolutely the consequence of the Trump HHS policymakers decisions.

[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.