| |
| ▲ | roenxi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm no doctor, but I suspect the conference organisers wanted the conference to focus on diabetes. Rather than exploring whether the USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > suspect the conference organisers wanted the conference to focus on diabetes The article they were distributing is pretty clearly about diabetes. If the actions it describes continues, significant efforts towards treating and even curing diabetes will be lost. | | |
| ▲ | ciupicri 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Just a year ago, in these very pages, we highlighted the many threats the current U.S. administration posed to the health of our nation (1). Since then, there have been actions by the administration that have caused grave health consequences, and their current approach will continue to do so. It sounds to me like criticism of the government. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > sounds to me like criticism of the government The article is not a long read [1]. It describes how current policy is dismantling and destroying the research infrastructure for diabetes, infrastructure which has started or has already borne significant fruit. It encapsulates a criticism of the administration, and it’s definitely scathing, but it’s far from a partisan rant. For example: “This CD3-directed monoclonal antibody has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prevent type 1 diabetes in people aged 8 years and older with stage 2 type 1 diabetes. As a result, we are a major step closer to a cure for type 1 diabetes. With the potential to prevent the disease, screening programs for type 1 diabetes are being initiated worldwide. … Two examples are the Human Islet Research Network (HIRN) and the Integrated Islet Distribution Program (IIDP). HIRN aims to advance our understanding of how β-cells are lost in human type 1 diabetes and to find inventive strategies to protect or replace β-cells in people with the disease.” The funding for that research is being cut. If you have a loved one with or at risk of getting diabetes, this could be the difference between vastly different levels of quality of life and years of life versus death. [1] https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Mi... | | |
| ▲ | roenxi an hour ago | parent [-] | | > The funding for that research is being cut. If you have a loved one with, or at risk of getting, diabetes, this could be the difference between vastly different levels of quality of life and years of life versus death. So just to jump back to the "The article they were distributing is pretty clearly about diabetes" thing mere comments ago - this seems to be about budgets and administrative matters. Those are generic concerns. In fact, in my unhumble opinion, this looks a lot like the sort of document written by someone with poor marketing skills worried that their budget is going to get cut in the near future. Especially since the conference organisers didn't think there was special merit to it. There isn't much (if any) research here. It can reasonably be said to be out of scope for a diabetes conference if the organisers don't want to include it. All of us would like a larger budget, we don't need to listen to other people present on the topic of how they also want larger budgets. That is a political topic. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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 article is about the research infrastructure supporting diabetes research. If diabetes researchers aren’t allowed to comment on whether diabetes funding is working or wasteful in their own journals, or present their published journal findings at their own conferences, you’re not going to get any basic diabetes research. > we don't need to listen to other people present on the topic of how they also want larger budgets. That is a political topic It is. It’s also about diabetes. Debating which research avenues are more promising than others is absolutely political. It’s also at the heart of science. And frankly, informing fellow researchers and policymakers of the boring parts of the science is part of a scientist’s job. Also, importantly, they aren’t asking for more budget in the article. They’re pointing out that the appropriated funds aren’t being delivered. They’re being literally misappropriated by OMB and HHS. | | |
| ▲ | roenxi an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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 fun I suppose but I'm not seeing why we need to be all up in their business. I bet less than 10% of the HN people who read the article even get to the "Misguided Brushes of a Pen..." editorial to find out what their complaint is. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > 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 going on. Personally, I flagged excerpts of the article to one of my Senator’s staffers. They weren’t aware of it, and will be surfacing the article to their boss, a doctor, tomorrow. If HHS is fucking around with Congressional appropriations on a healthcare issue germane to our state, they probably shouldn’t have gone out of their way to draw attention to it during an appropriation cycle. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tremon 36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | It can reasonably be said to be out of scope for a diabetes conference if the organisers don't want to include it So the organisers of a conference can control the topics that its attendees want to talk about in the hallways of the venue? They don't have to extend any agency to the attendees, they're just dumb consumers here? |
|
| |
| ▲ | throwaway173738 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Are you against criticism of the government by private organizations? | |
| ▲ | wyldfire an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 conference if you criticize the host government"? Because believe it or not, that's not been a problem in the USA prior to Trump. And it runs contrary to how science should work. | | |
| ▲ | ciupicri 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > If Adria Richards and PyCon can make a such fuss about a joke Your takeaway from Donglegate was that Richards was in the right? |
|
| |
| ▲ | skywhopper an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If the government is actively working against diabetes research, then there is no way to say that without “criticizing” the government. | |
| ▲ | brookst an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It was criticizing systematic anti-science decisions which lead to bad outcomes for diabetes research, and ultimately those with diabetes. The idea that a science based defense of science is anti-government and therefore off limits for a conference is downright Soviet. |
|
| |
| ▲ | wyldfire an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | One of science's most critical roles is to inform policymakers. And if they can't do that job effectively then it's right and just to point out the problems preventing it. Scientific conferences that fear critiques of the government chill new scientific publications. It's not like they were handing out "Trump sleeps during press events" posters. You should read the article they distributed, it's very relevant to the conference attendees. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent [-] | | > One of science's most critical roles is to inform policymakers Yup. From their article: “DCCT/EDIC revolutionized the approach to treating people with type 1 diabetes, establishing standards for glucose control and resulting in improved quality of life along with clinically significant reductions in the risk of diabetes complications and major adverse cardiovascular events. After 44 years, it continues to provide new insights, including showing that in adults with type 1 diabetes, neurodegeneration is likely the result of non–Alzheimer disease mechanisms. DPP/DPPOS, which enrolled people with prediabetes, demonstrated the benefit of intensive lifestyle intervention and metformin in reducing the risk of developing diabetes. These findings led Congress to approve an amendment to the Social Security Act to establish the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program and provide lifestyle intervention services for eligible individuals.” |
| |
| ▲ | skywhopper an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, but this detail is crucial to continuing to make progress on diabetes treatment and research. So it’s actually more fundamental than anything else. |
| |
| ▲ | zdragnar 18 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | He wasn't thrown in jail, the organizers of a private event removed him. This has nothing to do whatsoever with free speech. I'd expect better from a middle school debate team than this sophistry. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > This has nothing to do whatsoever with free speech Freedom of speech is a philosophical concept broader than the First Amendment. The conference organizers broke their own code of conduct to censor this article’s distribution. That violates principles of free speech. If they did it at the behest of a government official, that would be a First Amendment issue. We don’t have any evidence of that right now, but it isn’t a question which has been seriously investigated yet. | |
| ▲ | noelsusman 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | They removed him due to fear of reprisal from the federal government. How could that have nothing to do with free speech? |
|
|
| “When Fascism came into power, most people were unprepared, both theoretically and practically. They were unable to believe that man could exhibit such propensities for evil, such lust for power, such disregard for the rights of the weak, or such yearning for submission. Only a few had been aware of the rumbling of the volcano preceding the outbreak.” — Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom |
