7 ms·
Scientists ejected from diabetes conference for distributing journal reprints
- jfengel 4mo agoHeadline is weird. It's not a copyright thing, as I had assumed. It was because it was an editorial criticizing how the administration is running the NIH.
- Terr_ 4mo agoAnd not an arbitrary editorial, but: > > Some questioned how handing out reprints of an editorial published in the ADA’s own journal, at the ADA’s own annual conference, could be construed as a violation of that code.
- embedding-shape 4mo agoYou're not allowed to hand out your own articles you've published in the journal that the conference is about? One could start questioning what this conference is really about, if authors aren't allowed to provide a copy of their work to people they talk to... No one bats an eye about that almost every paper author shares their papers with you when you email them, but when you do so in person it's suddenly a problem?
- astura 4mo agoTFA makes the same point - >The scientists were not disruptive or disorderly in their conduct, based on the videos posted by MedPage Today, although the fact that they were handing out reprints just before an NIH representative was scheduled to speak might be construed as a form of protest. But it could just as easily be argued that such actions fall under valid scientific dissemination and discussion, the conference’s stated objective.
- Forgeties79 4mo agoAn editorial published in the (reputable) journal Diabetes Care, which they handed out at a diabetes conference. I imagine if it wasn’t critical of the administration they would not have been told to stop, but this is Louisiana so
- eesmith 4mo agoAnd one of the people kicked out was Steven Kahn, a co-author of the editorial, and editor-in-chief of Diabetes Care.
- metalman 4mo ago[flagged]
- Forgeties79 4mo agoYou can’t talk to people like that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- metalman 4mo ago[flagged]
- astura 4mo agoDiabetes Care isn't just a reputable journal, it is the flagship publication of the American Diabetes Association, the organizers of the conference!
- bluGill 4mo agoProtesting is not allowed by the rules. Though there is a good case that breaking that rule is the best action. Getting kicked out probably did more for their cause then their protest. They just need the guts to publicly stand by.
- adrian_b 4mo agoOthers have already quoted TFA, which rightly points that the distributing (by some of the coauthors) of an article published in the journal of a medical association, at the conference of the said medical association, a conference which has the claimed purpose of exchanging information between the members who attend the conference, can hardly be called a "protest" or a "violation of the code of conduct". There are few cases where it is so clear cut that only the organizers have violated the code of conduct, and not those who were expelled from the conference.
- brookst 4mo agoYeah this is like pointing out that it’s raining, when it is raining, at a conference about rain, when the only controversial thing is that a massively corrupt administration has announced that there’s no such thing as rain. If assertions of truth are cast as an anti-government protests, that says a lot about the government.
- astura 4mo agoYep, the article itself, 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!, is marked as "free" and is available without a paywall- https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Misguided-Brushes-of-a-Pen-Continue-to-Dismantle https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Mi...
- sailfast 4mo agoIt was because the group made the mistake of inviting the federal appointee currently running NIH. This would probably have been fine if this administration was not comprised of individuals that cannot abide any sort of pushback. The protest would not have been needed without the official there - but their presence made the organizers so nervous that they tossed the editor in chief of their own journal. The problem is how deep the federal dollars go into these systems that enable fear of pulling it. That is the mechanism of control. Our own tax dollars being weaponized.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago> problem is how deep the federal dollars go into these systems The problem is no state AG suing to stop OMB and HHS from illegally re-appropriating funds directed by the Congress for diabetes research. Like, the multi-year funding shenanigan called out in the article is literally accounting fuckery.
- sailfast 4mo agoTrue!
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- nritchie 4mo agoScience funding in the US is in crisis. We need to stand with those bold enough to point out that the emperor has no clothing.
- warumdarum 4mo ago[flagged]
- watwut 4mo agoNah. Science was not in such crises. It is literally people who want to deny uncomfortable realities that are attacking and destroying it now. The ideological anti reality issue is in the side of Trump voters. Also, funny enough, people who were correctly predicting what conservatives will do were called out of touch by people like you. Quite a few of them were actually social scientists and yes they have seen it.
- nandomrumber 4mo ago[flagged]
- uniqueuid 4mo agoThe causal loop you mentioned makes social science hard, but I’d argue that falsification and hypothesis-driven research can still work. Otherwise all the behavioral targeting Meta and Google and co are doing would not work.
- nandomrumber 4mo agoIf private enterprise want to fund marketing research, fine. It’s the social science academics living off the public purse I take issue with.
- ModernMech 4mo ago
- farcetrue2 4mo ago[flagged]
- SirFatty 4mo agoLighten up, Francis.
- trumpdong 4mo agoYou're using a throwaway account for a reason.
- thereasoniis 4mo ago[flagged]
- exe34 4mo agoeh, it's a private blog isn't it, they can set whatever terms they want and change their minds.
- donkey_brains 4mo ago“I’m not crazy, everyone else is crazy! That’s why they’re all out to get me.”
- KnuthIsGod 4mo ago[flagged]
- officialchicken 4mo agoAnd the JDF already has the Diabetes Peace Prize Award ready to send to him asking for the shifting of all research funds into "awareness" marketing.
- mannanj 4mo agoBtW it is at least partially fake news. Or engineered and coopted by powerful interests. I've personally reversed my own prediabetes, and helped my mom manage her own with a diet change. (yes it consisted of avoiding seed oils). No a brainwashed populace that believes doctors are whom you are supposed to get nutrition advice from, or that believes an industry that profits off of sick people who has their hands in the funding funnels and mainstream media and astroturfing accounts here on hacker news like you is going to look out for their best interest, that populace not going to believe that. That's ok. Let those of us not tribalizing and astroturfing take back our health and dignity and agency and autonomy in caring for ourselves.
- timmytokyo 4mo agoYes, let's all do our own research, abetted by brilliant men of science like Joe Rogan and RFK Jr.
- mannanj 4mo agoNice Ad Hominem and Straw Man. you can't actually advocate on any of my points so you resort to attacks and logical fallacies. Name one reason I should continue to engage with someone who is judgemental and hostile and isn't listening like you.
- convolvatron 4mo agothe medical system has been opt-in forever. I completely support your decision to make your own health care decisions. glad that's working out for you. that doesn't mean you get to decide that the rest of us can't invest in medical research or pay experts that know more than us about how our bodies work to treat us.
- hnarayanan 4mo agoI used to do this when I was in grad school as a matter of principle. F the man.
- KnuthIsGod 4mo ago".Some questioned how handing out reprints of an editorial published in the ADA’s own journal, at the ADA’s own annual conference, could be construed as a violation of that code.." The God Emperor is not to be questioned.
- Leptonmaniac 4mo agoBurn the Heretic. Kill the Mutant. Purge the Liberals?
- 100ms 4mo ago[flagged]
- blitzar 4mo agoclearly offended "The Party"
- black_13 4mo ago[dead]
- lucasRW 4mo ago[flagged]
- donkey_brains 4mo agoNone of that happened here.
- mcswell 4mo agoI'm hoping the Streisand Effect will take hold, and this editorial becomes the most read article ever of that journal. I've posted this news on my FB (yes...) page. And I downloaded a PDF, in case the journal takes the editorial down.
- shevy-java 4mo agoWell, there is one problem here: not everyone is interested in diabetes/nutrition. So the Streisand effect may kick in with regards to the ousted individuals, but I am not sure it will generate more interest in the topic/paper at hand. For instance, I am not particularly interested in diabetes per se; I'd be more interested in molecular medicine and what not. Either way the current administration is very hostile to science. It is kind of a sign of a dictatorship model. Trump wants to be the final authority. His cognitive decline is enormous though, it's like a broken stick that will remain broken.
- mcswell 4mo agoGood point, so here's how I worded my FB post without even mentioning diabetes (URL truncated here because that's how FB displays them, but it works): "Scientists were ejected from a meeting of the American Diabetes Associate for distributing printouts of an editorial that had appeared in the ADA journal. Here's the link: https://diabetesjournals.org/.../Misguided-Brushes-of-a https://diabetesjournals.org/.../Misguided-Brushes-of-a.... The article highlights "the many threats the current U.S. administration pose[s] to the health of our nation". I recommend that you do read it: it is not technical, you don't need to have a degree in medicine or biology to read it. What do people not understand about the First Amendment?"
- throwaway394085 4mo ago> What do people not understand about the First Amendment? Are you implying that the ADA is bound by the First Amendment in this case? If so, can you elaborate how?
- 3mo ago
- shevy-java 4mo agoTrump and his cronies try to repurpose everything they slurp up into a propaganda tool. Recently Hegseth babbled about how Europe will perish because of immigration. Today five people were evicted from a conference about science. Their crime? Not supporting Trump. Something is fundamentally broken in the USA. It's like Neo-Russia, or rather handled like that by those cronies.
- embedding-shape 4mo ago> “They physically grabbed us, forced us out of the conference center, and now are telling us we can no longer attend this meeting,” Kelly told MedPage Today, which first reported the incident. “They’re taking our lanyards. It really has come to this in America. Censorship is real. America needs to stand up. Scientists, stand up. Physicians, stand up.” It's become very evident from the outside that the best time to stand up was yesterday, and you might already be too far down the slope to be able to quickly recover for this. I really do feel for all Americans who just want to have a normal life with an average quality of life or above, but at one point the environment around you change so quickly that that stops being even a possibility in the future. If your life hasn't been affected yet, it will be shortly. The best day to stand up against the ongoing censorship and repression might have been yesterday, but the second-best day to do so is today. You really need to start caring about this before it's way to late. One "no kings protest" every 6 months is not gonna do anything, what you need is wide solidarity across industries, and a real general strike across the country. The second you do this, you'll see that the many and poor can control the few and rich.
- quietsegfault 4mo agoMany of us are protesting every day.
- embedding-shape 4mo agoBy actually striking, or by waving a sign outside? Don't get me wrong, anything is better than nothing, and many small streams may form into one big river, eventually. But short of a general strike across impactful industries, I think the current wave of protests won't actually achieve anything. There is a reason "general strikes" are so feared by the political and wealthy class, and it's because there is no way for them to get rid of them without actually agreeing to some of the demands, otherwise the strikes actually impact their lives. Protesting by going out on the streets waving signs isn't gonna accomplish that, sadly.
- sailfast 4mo ago
- eduction 4mo ago[flagged]
- croes 4mo ago> All attendees will conduct themselves in a professional and respectful manner, free from any form of discrimination, harassment, or intimidation,” the code of conduct states. “Inappropriate conduct, including but not limited to harassment; threatening or unwelcome physical or verbal actions; or disorderly or disruptive conduct such as protesting, will not be tolerated.” Which part did they violate?
- adrian_b 4mo agoAs TFA explains and other posters have also mentioned, they did not violate any code of conduct. Only the organizers have violated the code of conduct. A conference for the members of a medical association has the stated purpose of providing a venue for the exchange of information between the members. When the authors of an article published in the journal of the said medical association distribute free copies of that article to their colleagues who attend the conference, they do exactly the thing for which the conference is organized. Only a shameless liar can claim that such an action is a "violation of the code of conduct".
- mbmbn 4mo agoAny reasonable person, would understand that a scientific organization aim of promoting the share of information between members, applies to scientific information, not to political propaganda.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo agoThis comment doesn’t say anything…
- 9dev 4mo agoWhere is the line between political propaganda and pointing out malconduct of the administration that is relevant to practitioners?
- croes 4mo ago> handing out copies of an editorial, published in the journal Diabetes Care on April 29, sharply criticizing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on scientific research.
- wileydragonfly 4mo agoBhattacharya is an unlicensed MD and completely unfit to lead NIH
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago> Bhattacharya is an unlicensed MD Doesn’t this just mean not practicing? Broadly speaking, that per se seems fine.
- wileydragonfly 4mo agoYou could have simply searched this versus posting, but he never completed a residency. To go into US medical school debt and not complete your training is strongly indicative of deep rooted problems.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo agoHuh, are there credible suspicions around what went wrong?
- aoeusnth1 4mo agoIt doesn't matter what went wrong- he is not a credible leader. If you are going to lead doctors, you should be a doctor. It doesn't matter why you didn't become a doctor.
- bArray 4mo ago[flagged]
- mattoxic 4mo ago<current government>, isn't really your <typical government>. Protest is warranted. And I'm sure that these serious people felt that their actions were justified. I'm glad they did it, and I'm glad I have read about it.
- stevenalowe 4mo agoI’m happy you shared that moment with us all, so brave!
- bArray 4mo agoI'm not making this political. I'm simply stating that they took an action, and they knew what the result of taking that action would be. They then can't get upset that the clear consequence of their protest was an entirely predictable outcome.
- ceejayoz 4mo ago> When you look to make a statement, you should always fully understand the cost and how it could play out. These were not children and they are responsible for their actions. Huh. A while back on here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42390479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42390479) you were complaining that Alex Jones was getting too many consequences for his statements. Was he a child? Why the change in tune?
- bArray 4mo agoThat wasn't the argument I made in 2024. If these people at ADA were now facing a legal battle where somebody was claiming $1bn in damages, and their assets were being sold off to a bidder controlled by Trump, then I would also be claiming foul play. But these people were simply ejected for seemingly not following the rules, which seems like a reasonable action.
- iandanforth 4mo agoA reminder to anyone who finds themselves in this kind of situation, do not engage with the rhetoric of the enemy. You cannot win an argument where they set the rules. So here, where they question whether or not they were "protesting" distracts from the reality of a censorious organization that will weaponize regulations it controls without good faith. Instead you need a simple, memorable statement of condemnation which is repeated consistently and a clear action which those who hear it can take in response. "This organization is controlled by Trump loyalists. They are not scientists. You do not owe them respect. Speak over them. Let no manipulation go unchallenged or derided."
- ungreased0675 4mo agoI’d disagree with trying to make it political. If it’s just about funding, plenty of people are happy the grant spigot is being turned off. Something that may resonate with a broader spectrum is how science requires debate and polite disagreement. Good ideas can survive being pressure tested. Compelling consensus has terrible long-term outcomes.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago> do not engage with the rhetoric of the enemy. You cannot win an argument where they set the rules Strongly disagree. If they went straight up partisan at the conference, I’d be sympathetic to the notion of throwing them out. Not every space needs to be a protest venue. They didn’t do that. They distributed an article published in the organization’s own journal. They argue why what they did cannot reasonably be considered “protest” under the organisation’s rules, given it’s literally what the conference is for. Challenging the notion that their ejection was the ADA following its own rules is the difference between them breaking the rules and the ADA breaking its own rules to censor their speech. (To cut off an aside, no the ADA isn’t bound by the First Amendment. Yes, the government is, and if they’re corruptly influencing to yank these researchers from the conference, that’s a legal issue. But more broadly, the concept of free speech is broader than the First Amendment.)
- iandanforth 4mo agoThe point being that we're beyond where that's a responsible choice. Empathy for an organization enforcing its rules above the actions of those protesting them means either an ideological alignment with the censorship or an ignorance/disbelief of the severity of the harm the organization is causing. The former audience will never be persuaded. The latter require education and persuasion, and while its useful to create a sense of martyrdom via forcing the enemy to act in an obviously unreasonable fashion, it's a waste of time to argue with their definitions of rules. If the rule were "you are not allowed to say the governing body is corrupt" and they say its corrupt, that exposes clearly and plainly the problem, and enforcement of the rule provides no authority because the rule itself is obviously designed to quash dissent. If the listener is so blithely oblivious to how the intent of a rule has been manipulated to quash dissent, as it has here, then there is no loss in squarely addressing that. "We are protesting your abandonment of scientific principles" is both what they were doing and should be doing.
- znpy 4mo agoThis is unacceptable, and it’s fascist behaviour. These kind of behaviour should trigger the dismantling of the whole ADA organisation, then to be rebuilt on proper grounds. As usual i’m not surprised these fascist behaviours (“you’d better align with us and publicly pledge allegiance to us or else”) comes from the left. They’re the real fascist.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- breckenedge 4mo agoLink to the editorial: https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Misguided-Brushes-of-a-Pen-Continue-to-Dismantle https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Mi...
- selimthegrim 4mo agoMy understanding is that is the expurgated version.
- cobertos 4mo agoWhat was deleted from this version?
- mbmbn 4mo ago[flagged]
- 0x696C6961 4mo ago[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago> they would do it outside the premises at the entrance to the building If they were distributing fliers, sure. They weren’t. They were distributing an article published in the conference organizer’s own journal. That’s what academics do at conferences! > risk losing all funding They’ve already lost the funding. That’s what is being pointed out. OMB is using accounting shenanigans to circumvent the will of the Congress to cut funding to diabetes research, including, based on the article, some pretty serious and nonpartisan stuff.
- mbmbn 4mo agoThey were actually distributing an opinion piece titled “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!” They weren’t distributing a scientific article. Link: https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Misguided-Brushes-of-a-Pen-Continue-to-Dismantle https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Mi...
- JumpCrisscross 4mo agoIt’s an editorial published in the journal of the conference organizer. Calling it an “opinion piece” is incorrect—the journal is still publishing it as part of its proceedings. Astronomical journals frequently have articles going through the economics of various telescope proposals. The analogy would be someone in management at one of those conferences with an economic stake in one of the telescopes forbidding that team from distributing its work while others continue to do so. It’s obviously a breach of any reasonable code of conduct. It’s obviously a departure from precedent. And it would make anyone outside that conference really curious about the specific allegations raised in the quashed paper.
- NotGMan 4mo ago[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 4mo agoThis has nothing to do with the funding cuts to basic research the article calls out. Cuts which seem to directly contravene the law.
- 9dev 4mo agoSuch as lifting bans on forever chemicals, spreading doubt over vaccinations, and promoting conspiracy theories? I'm sorry, I don't trust a man that shares videos of himself killing snakes on his porch to responsibly handle... well, anything! If you point a shotgun at a flock of sheep and a wolf - sure, you might hit the wolf sometimes. That doesn't mean you're doing a good thing!
- jmclnx 4mo agoAll this proves to me is the current US admin. is intent on turning China into the number 1 scientific research country. At this rate, English could be replaced by Mandarin as the main international language of commerce. The only thing that could hold it back is the writing system. If China could convert its writing to use the Latin alphabet I think that could happen with the US now on the path of destroying its research institutions.
- delichon 4mo agoThey were quietly, politely protesting, but protesting. If two identical conferences had a rule against protesting, but conference A had a plan to have zero tolerance for it, and conference B decided to play it by ear, evaluate based on the disruption and reasonableness and respond as the situation required ... I'd rather go to conference A. I'd feel the same way about a no smoking rule.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago> They were quietly, politely protesting, but protesting How? Researchers handing out a journal from the conference organizer’s own journal is now protesting and banned at conferences? The “protestors” include the editor of the journal. They knew what the rules were and they followed them. If Conference A gets to yank research because a non-science MBA at the journal thinks it could hurt their stock price, and Conference B doesn’t allow that, which conference do you think will do more important work?
- brookst 4mo agoSo was the ADA protesting when they printed the article in the first place? There’s a word for countries where speaking literal, objective, scientific truth is framed as protesting and therefore objectionable.
- TitaRusell 4mo ago[flagged]
- cbarrick 4mo agoThe editor-in-chief of a journal handing out a paper that was published in that journal at a conference for that journal... is quite different from ranting about space lizards in a public square. Your argument is a strawman: you are refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion. The argument isn't "is protesting at a conference acceptable?" The argument is "does this behavior constitute an unacceptable protest?"
- MemoryHoleHQ 4mo agoThey weren't handing a paper published in the journal (which implies some kind of scientific paper); they were handing an opinion piece titled :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!
- cbarrick 4mo agoSo you're concerned about my use of the word "paper." That's fair I guess. But the editorial in question was in fact published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Just so that we're all clear on the facts: - The editorial was published in Diabetes Care, Volume 49, Issue 6. [1] - Diabetes Care is a publication of the American Diabetes Association (ADA). It is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with an IF of 16. [2] - The paper being distributed was an editorial, not research. [3] - Steven Kahn, first author of the editorial and one of those thrown out of the conference, is the editor-in-chief of Diabetes Care. [4] - The conference in question was The American Diabetes Association’s Scientific Sessions. [5] The important question: Should the distribution of an editorial published in an ADA journal be considered a code of conduct violation at the ADA conference? [1]: https://diabetesjournals.org/care/issue/49/6 https://diabetesjournals.org/care/issue/49/6 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_Care https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_Care [3]: https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Misguided-Brushes-of-a-Pen-Continue-to-Dismantle https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Mi... [4]: https://diabetesjournals.org/care/pages/Editorial_Board https://diabetesjournals.org/care/pages/Editorial_Board [5]: https://professional.diabetes.org/scientific-sessions https://professional.diabetes.org/scientific-sessions
- like_any_other 4mo ago[flagged]
- lokar 4mo agoI think you have to start from: - the organizers are doing what they think is best for the attendees, and what the majority of attendees want And, you should consider: "what if everyone did that?" I gather they had a paper they thought was important, but was not accepted to the conference (so they had no formal chance to present it). What would happen if everyone who's paper was rejected could just wander around passing it out and pitching it to random passerby's? I think almost everyone who attends conferences would not want that. I wonder what other options they considered. Did the conference have a less formal forum, like workshops or something? Could the topic be discussed there? A poster session?
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago> you should consider: "what if everyone did that?" Literally every academic conference. > but was not accepted to the conference (so they had no formal chance to present it) One, source for it not being accepted to the conference? It was accepted to the conference organizer’s journal. Two, again, literally every academic conference. Folks handing out their papers, including preprints not published at the organizer’s journal, is ridiculously common. > Could the topic be discussed there? Again, literally just handing out their article.
- lokar 4mo agoThe last CS conf I went to (admittedly, a while ago), I did not run into people passing out papers unprompted. Is that what you mean? Just going up to people you don't know and handing it to them? Or, giving it to people you know, or are already talking to? I'm not sure I understand the situation.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago> Just going up to people you don't know and handing it to them? Standing in a hallway handing them out and discussing? I’ve seen it at aerospace conferences aplenty. > giving it to people you know, or are already talking to? This, too.
- MarkSamuels12 4mo agoWell, they were making the conference political. I guess they were surprised by this.