Scientists ejected from diabetes conference for distributing journal reprints

Post by trehalose » Sun, Jun 07, 2026, 2:43 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #131

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 artic…

I 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 fu…

Post by lokar » Sun, Jun 07, 2026, 2:44 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #167

lokar wrote: post #162

I 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 pass…

> 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…

Post by trumpdong » Sun, Jun 07, 2026, 2:45 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #164

trumpdong wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this advice apply in every case or does it have a restricted scope?

> Does this advice apply in every case or does it have a restricted scope? In case you’re being serious, this has been debated in various liberal traditions since the conception liberalism was first born. In essence, the modern liberal tradition (modern as in post-Enlightenment, i.e. about the whole time America has existed) says you don’t censor anything except for forces seeking to censor (paradox of tolerance).

Post by poly2it » Sun, Jun 07, 2026, 2:49 PM UTC

Vaslo wrote: post #169

embedding-shape wrote: post #39

> “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 s…

You’re pretending like the vast majority of people are being oppressed by some military government but easily forget that tens of millions of us support the president and aren’t intimidated whatsoever by anything people like you could do.

Post by cobertos » Sun, Jun 07, 2026, 2:59 PM UTC

selimthegrim wrote: post #134

breckenedge wrote: post #79

Link to the editorial: https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Mi...

My understanding is that is the expurgated version.