American Diabetes Association apologises after researchers removed from Scientific Sessions

ADA chief executive Charles Henderson said in the association's statement that the organisation would commission an independent review of the events at the meeting and remained committed to robust funding for diabetes research. The Express-News reported that Henderson apologised by video to Steven E. Kahn, Desmond Schatz, Aaron Kelly, Maureen Gannon and Justin Ryder, the five researchers removed from the conference on June 5.

The incident took place during the ADA's annual Scientific Sessions, a major diabetes research and clinical meeting. The Washington Post reported on June 5 that the researchers were handing out copies of an editorial published in Diabetes Care, the ADA's own journal, outside a conference hall where an NIH-related keynote address was scheduled. STAT also reported that security officers escorted five doctors and scientists out of the meeting after they distributed the editorial.

The editorial at the centre of the dispute was written by Kahn, the editor in chief of Diabetes Care, and other journal editors. The Diabetes Care article, published online on June 8 under the title "Please Tell Me It Is Only a Nightmare - The Proposed Dismantling of the United States Federal Research Infrastructure," criticised proposed changes to federal research funding and grantmaking. Conexiant reported that the editorial responded to a May 29 Office of Management and Budget proposal on federal financial assistance and argued that the proposal would move grant decisions away from expert peer review toward political appointees.

The ADA's account and the researchers' account differ on the cause of the removal. The Express-News reported that the association initially said the researchers were removed for violating conference conduct rules and for distributing materials without authorisation, not because of the viewpoint in the material. The Washington Post and STAT attributed the researchers' position to participants who said they were distributing a published scientific editorial and viewed the response as censorship of scientific debate.