Scientists ejected from diabetes conference for distributing journal reprints

At the American Diabetes Association's annual conference in New Orleans, five distinguished scientists were asked to leave after handing out copies of an editorial published recently in the journal Diabetes Care. The editorial contained criticism of the Trump administration's approach to scientific research, highlighting ongoing government efforts to reform the health system. While these reforms have led to debates and disagreements among professionals, the editorial aimed to call attention to the challenges researchers face under current policies.

The group expelled included Steven Kahn, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington and editor-in-chief of Diabetes Care, who co-wrote the editorial. Other members were Desmond Schatz, a former ADA president from the University of Florida; Aaron Kelly, a pediatrics professor at the University of Minnesota; Justin Ryder from Northwestern University; and Irl Hirsch, also from the University of Washington.

These scientists were distributing the editorial's reprints outside a session initially scheduled to feature NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya. Bhattacharya canceled his appearance, and another NIH official took his place. According to Aaron Kelly, conference security physically removed the scientists from the venue, revoked their badges, and prohibited them from attending any further sessions. Kelly expressed concerns about censorship and urged colleagues in the scientific and medical communities across the country to defend their freedom to engage openly in discourse.

The American Diabetes Association later confirmed the removal, citing violations of the conference's code of conduct. The association noted that the scientists were given warnings and opportunities to cease the distribution, but when the behavior persisted, security was instructed to escort them out.

This incident has sparked wider conversations about the limits of free expression within scientific forums and the appropriate balance between organizational rules and open debate, especially during periods of significant policy change.