ADA Expels 5 Scientists from Conference for Distributing Editorial Reprints

On June 6, at the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) annual meeting, five prominent scientists were abruptly ejected from the venue. According to reports from Ars Technica, their “offense” was distributing reprints of an editorial published in the association’s own medical journal, Diabetes Care. The editorial sharply criticized the Trump administration’s repeated attacks on scientific research.

The five expelled scientists were: Steven Kahn, a University of Washington professor and editor-in-chief of Diabetes Care; former ADA President Desmond Schatz; Aaron Kelly of the University of Minnesota; Justin Ryder of Northwestern University; and Earl Hirsch, also of the University of Washington. They had been handing out reprints of the editorial to attendees outside the venue where Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was scheduled to speak. Bhattacharya canceled his talk, and another NIH official took the stage instead.

Kelly told the medical media outlet MedPage Today: “I was physically grabbed, forcibly removed from the convention center, and told I could no longer attend this meeting. My badge was taken. Has it really come to this in America? Censorship is real. America must stand up. Scientists, doctors, raise your voices.”

The ADA issued a statement explaining that the five had violated the association’s code of conduct: “These participants exhibited behavior inconsistent with the code of conduct and were removed by venue security. They were respectfully asked to cease their actions but did not comply, leading to their removal.” The ADA’s code of conduct states: “All participants must act professionally and respectfully, free from discrimination, harassment, and intimidation. Disruptive actions such as protests are not tolerated.”

However, questions have been raised about how distributing reprints of an editorial that appeared in an ADA-published journal at an ADA meeting could constitute a code of conduct violation. Witnesses reported that the five scientists did not act loudly or disruptively; they were simply handing out copies of the editorial.

The incident quickly went viral on social media. Criticism flooded X (formerly Twitter) and Bluesky, leading to the ironic outcome that access to the editorial by the expelled scientists surged. It was also revealed that Kahn’s editorial included a disclaimer from ADA leadership stating, “ADA was not involved in the creation or writing of this article.”

Kahn has since sent a letter to the ADA requesting readmission, as he is scheduled to give a talk and chair a session at the meeting. The fact that his right to speak at his own session is even under threat has sent shockwaves through the scientific community.

Editorial View

In the short term, the ADA’s response severely damages its credibility as an academic organization. A conference is meant to be a place where science advances through the exchange of differing opinions. Characterizing the distribution of reprints of an editorial published in one’s own journal as “disruptive behavior” and resorting to physical removal reflects a significant imbalance between free expression and the management of academic discourse. Going forward, the ADA may face a large-scale exodus of members and lower attendance at future meetings. As the criticism on social media shows, the solidarity within the scientific community is not insignificant.

In the long term, this incident highlights that the political neutrality of scientific research in the United States is in serious crisis. Cuts to science budgets and political interference during the Trump administration had long been criticized, but the sight of an academic society itself silencing criticism of the administration strikes at the very foundation of scientific autonomy. An environment where a journal editor is expelled simply for distributing a paper he edited at a conference could create a chilling effect, making researchers hesitant to criticize policy. Over time, this hinders the healthy development of science.

We, as the editorial board, ask: For whom and for what purpose does a society’s code of conduct exist? Is it to suppress protests and expressions of opinion, or to protect a space for constructive discussion? The ADA’s decision in this case shows that the interpretation and application of a code of conduct can sometimes turn into a weapon that infringes on free speech. This issue extends beyond medicine and appears to be a universal theme that all academic societies and technical communities must confront.

References

• Ars Technica: Scientists ejected from diabetes conference for distributing journal reprints — Published June 6, 2026