> 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.

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.