Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists ejected from diabetes conference for distributing journal reprints

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 245 posts

Re: Scientists ejected from diabetes conference for distributing journal reprints

#181

Post by 866-RON-0-FEZ »

adrian_b wrote: post #67
roenxi wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be reading too much in to minor drama at a diabetes conference. The gentleman in question could have gone to protest outside (and probably did). 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).

Their so-called "protest" was just distributing an article already published in the journal of the medical association to which this conference is attached, which probably discussed matters of interest for the attendance, like the future of research financing in this domain. 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. Thos…

> Even on HN you can still see claims that USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences.

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.

Re: Scientists ejected from diabetes conference for distributing journal reprints

#182

Post by wyldfire »

ciupicri wrote: post #143
wyldfire wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like the article is indirectly related to the subject of the conference. It is critical of the government, but not in the "human rights abuses of this administration threaten us all" way (though even that seems reasonable to discuss). 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 c…

If Adria Richards and PyCon can make a such fuss about a joke [1], then other conferences can do the same about current political events. I personally wouldn't mind or better said I wouldn't be offended because the topic might be boring for me. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donglegate

This is a false equivalence. "What constitutes appropriate humor" versus "Government silences dissent." Just because the Diabetes conference cited their code of conduct doesn't mean that's actually what this is about.

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.

Re: Scientists ejected from diabetes conference for distributing journal reprints

#183

Post by JumpCrisscross »

roenxi wrote: post #165
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[flagged]

> 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!

Re: Scientists ejected from diabetes conference for distributing journal reprints

#184

Post by wileydragonfly »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #111
wileydragonfly wrote: post #59

Bhattacharya is an unlicensed MD and completely unfit to lead NIH

> Bhattacharya is an unlicensed MD Doesn’t this just mean not practicing? Broadly speaking, that per se seems fine.

You could have simply searched this versus posting, but he never completed a residency. To go into US medical school debt and not complete your training is strongly indicative of deep rooted problems.

Re: Scientists ejected from diabetes conference for distributing journal reprints

#185

Post by JumpCrisscross »

roenxi wrote: post #176
trehalose wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> 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'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.

Re: Scientists ejected from diabetes conference for distributing journal reprints

#187

Post by cbarrick »

TitaRusell wrote: post #180

[flagged]

The editor-in-chief of a journal handing out a paper that was published in that journal at a conference for that journal... is quite different from ranting about space lizards in a public square.

Your argument is a strawman: you are refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion. The argument isn't "is protesting at a conference acceptable?" The argument is "does this behavior constitute an unacceptable protest?"

Re: Scientists ejected from diabetes conference for distributing journal reprints

#188

Post by roenxi »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #185
roenxi wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'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.

The downvoters are their own mysterious nonverbal community. Most of the time I don't see them as part of the conversation.

Re: Scientists ejected from diabetes conference for distributing journal reprints

#189

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #174
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> short of a general strike across impactful industries, I think the current wave of protests won't actually achieve anything If like another 5% of eligible voters committed to voting every election, minor or not, and committed to calling their electeds on one issue every quarter, we’d likely see a sea change. The threshold for laziness is very low, currently only 1 in 5 [1]. That’s both annoying and an opportunity.…

" Bigger turnout in 2024 would have benefited Trump, new survey finds " https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/26/2024-election-turno... The problem is not turnout. What the Democrats seem unable or unwilling to accept is that the American public doesn't agree with their platform and are also unable or unwilling to change their platform to something that voters will elect them for.

> problem is not turnout. What the Democrats

You’re only looking at the general. 5% more eligible voters turning out to primaries could easily flip the outcome, or at the very least, signal a political bloc that will show up for someone. 5% of eligible voters contacting their electeds would represent a 25% increase from baseline; this is the sort of power that makes e.g. regulating supplements impossible. (If you try your office’s phone lines get blown up by constituents.)

> unable or unwilling to change their platform

Changing your platform for a group that doesn’t turn out is incredibly risky. Sometimes it works. Most of the time, they keep up not turning out.

Re: Scientists ejected from diabetes conference for distributing journal reprints

#190

Post by preg_match »

mbmbn wrote: post #105
adrian_b wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As TFA explains and other posters have also mentioned, they did not violate any code of conduct. Only the organizers have violated the code of conduct. A conference for the members of a medical association has the stated purpose of providing a venue for the exchange of information between the members. When the authors of an article published in the journal of the said medical association distribute free copies of tha…

Any reasonable person, would understand that a scientific organization aim of promoting the share of information between members, applies to scientific information, not to political propaganda.

[dead]
Post reply on HN