3 ms·
> 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
by JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> 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.
- roenxi 5mo agoI mean, so the concern here is what - HN disagrees with a decision made by an ADA organiser at a conference related to whether budgets and administration is appropriate in conference scope? They got to have their say. Editorial published, made international news. I imagine all the conference attendees read it if they cared. Seems like a non-issue. Can we find a real problem for me to read up on instead? I'm having fun I suppose but I'm not seeing why we need to be all up in their business. I bet less than 10% of the HN people who read the article even get to the "Misguided Brushes of a Pen..." editorial to find out what their complaint is.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago> the concern here is what ADA is violating its own code of conduct to suppress an article that calls out potentially-illegal misappropriation of diabetes-research funding by OMB and HHS, funding which falls in a results-oriented tradition and/or cuts off strong candidates for future therapies. > Seems like a non-issue Half of the front page usually is. You’re engaging with this content, so there is clearly something going on. Personally, I flagged excerpts of the article to one of my Senator’s staffers. They weren’t aware of it, and will be surfacing the article to their boss, a doctor, tomorrow. If HHS is fucking around with Congressional appropriations on a healthcare issue germane to our state, they probably shouldn’t have gone out of their way to draw attention to it during an appropriation cycle.
- roenxi 5mo ago[flagged]
- iamnothere 5mo ago[flagged]
- trumpdong 5mo agoWhat did we see during COVID and BLM?
- iamnothere 5mo ago[flagged]
- trumpdong 5mo agoWhat specifically happened to who?
- iamnothere 5mo ago[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago> that has little to do with the actual science of diabetes Not the takeaway I got from the article. They describe specific research and specific dollar-drawdown amounts. The tools of science are just as relevant as the science per se to the process of science. I may be extrapolating from the astronomical circles I’m more familiar with. But folks debating telescopes and whatnot is commonplace, political, and absolutely germane. In many of those cases, simply handing out an editorial wasn’t the norm—you’d have straight-up advocacy going on. The idea that a conference organizer would eject someone for distributing a published paper would be absurd. > likely that the conference organisers want to encourage technical discussion in a polite low-politics environment They invited a political appointee to speak!
- trehalose 5mo ago> They got to have their say. Editorial published, made international news. I imagine all the conference attendees read it if they cared. Seems like a non-issue. If it's such a non-issue, why should they have been forcefully ejected from the premises over it? And why do you feel so strongly that they should have been?
- roenxi 5mo ago> And why do you feel so strongly that they should have been? I don't. It makes literally no difference to me; especially since I've skimmed through the actual paper they were handing out anyway. I'm just trying to figure out if there is actually an issue here or whether we're just having an anti-Trump session. And I'm arguing with JCC which is its own reward.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago> I'm arguing with JCC which is its own reward I don’t think any of your comments deserve to be downvoted, for what it’s worth.
- roenxi 5mo agoThe downvoters are their own mysterious nonverbal community. Most of the time I don't see them as part of the conversation.