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).
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.
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.
It 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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I don’t think any of your comments deserve to be downvoted, for what it’s worth.
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?
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.
Your takeaway from Donglegate was that Richards was in the right?
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.
For what it's worth, 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...
The idea that a science based defense of science is anti-government and therefore off limits for a conference is downright Soviet.
> 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...
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!
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
— Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom