Five prominent scientists were removed from the American Diabetes Association’s annual meeting in New Orleans on Friday after handing out reprints of an editorial that criticized the Trump administration’s treatment of scientific research. The confrontation unfolded outside a room where NIH director Jay Bhattacharya had been scheduled to speak; Bhattacharya canceled his appearance and another NIH official took his place.
Who was removed from the meeting
Those ejected were Steven Kahn, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington and editor-in-chief of Diabetes Care; former ADA president Desmond Schatz of the University of Florida, Gainesville; Aaron Kelly, a pediatrics professor at the University of Minnesota; Justin Ryder of Northwestern University; and Irl Hirsch, also of the University of Washington. According to the report, the group was distributing copies of an editorial Kahn co-authored, which had been published in Diabetes Care on April 29.
Kelly told MedPage Today, which first reported the incident, that security physically removed them from the conference center and said they could no longer attend the meeting. “They physically grabbed us, forced us out of the conference center, and now are telling us we can no longer attend this meeting,” Kelly said. “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.”
ADA says the scientists violated conference conduct rules
The ADA confirmed to MedPage Today that five registered scientists had been removed, saying they violated the organization’s code of conduct. In a statement, the ADA media team said: “These attendees were escorted out by our onsite event security because they demonstrated behavior not consistent with this code of conduct.” The organization added that the attendees were given the chance to stop the behavior and declined to do so.
The code of conduct says attendees must act “in a professional and respectful manner, free from any form of discrimination, harassment, or intimidation.” It also says that “inappropriate conduct,” including “harassment; threatening or unwelcome physical or verbal actions; or disorderly or disruptive conduct such as protesting,” will not be tolerated.
The editorial at the center of the dispute
The editorial that the scientists were handing out was sharply critical of the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on scientific research. According to Kahn, the piece was published with a disclaimer added by ADA leadership stating that the ADA had nothing to do with developing or writing it.
Online reaction to the removals spread quickly across Twitter/X and BlueSky, and the attention reportedly drove more traffic to the editorial. Kahn has written to the ADA seeking readmission to the conference, since he is scheduled to speak and chair a session.
Why some questioned the removal
Some observers questioned how distributing reprints of an editorial already published in the ADA’s own journal, at the ADA’s own meeting, could amount to a code-of-conduct violation. Based on videos posted by MedPage Today, the scientists did not appear to be disruptive or disorderly. At the same time, the timing of the handouts—just before an NIH representative was set to speak—could be interpreted as a form of protest.
The article notes that the behavior could also be seen as part of scientific discussion and dissemination, which is one of the stated purposes of a conference. That tension sits at the heart of the controversy: whether the scientists were engaging in protected academic exchange or crossing into protest that the ADA says it does not allow inside the meeting.
What the editorial said
The editorial itself urged scientists and physicians not to stay quiet in the face of political pressure. “It is no longer enough to stand idly by or work behind the scenes with lawmakers,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, it is no longer appropriate to fret about political backlash.”
They went on to argue that the United States risks losing its position as a leader in health care innovation. “Now is the time to recognize and fight to reverse the spiraling fall of the United States of America’s status as the foremost nation in health care innovation,” the editorial said. “As a nation, we must continue to believe in ensuring better health for all. A few brushes of a pen, some clearly visible through budget requests, others less so through internal machinations, are rapidly destroying what generations have built. We can no longer afford complacency and fear. We must all act now!”
Why the incident resonated
The episode is notable not only because it involved senior figures in diabetes research, but also because it unfolded at a meeting focused on the very field that depends heavily on federal science funding, NIH support, and long-term research infrastructure. The removal of an editorial’s authors from a scientific conference, especially one held by the journal that published the piece, has prompted broader questions about how professional societies define protest, commentary, and acceptable conduct.
For now, the ADA has maintained that it acted under its conference rules, while the scientists involved have framed the removal as censorship. The clash has turned what might have been a routine distribution of reprints into a public dispute over academic freedom, conference discipline, and the role of scientists in political debate.
Source: Original report
Was this helpful?
Last Modified: July 7, 2026 at 9:19 pm
18 views
