Pull to refresh
Logo
Scientists boycott American Diabetes Association over June conference ousters

Scientists boycott American Diabetes Association over June conference ousters

Rule Changes

Members halt grant and article reviews for Diabetes Care, escalating a governance fight over editorial independence

Today: Members launch boycott halting grant and article reviews

Overview

Updated 1 hour ago

American Diabetes Association (ADA) members are refusing to review grants and new article submissions for the group's flagship journal, Diabetes Care. The boycott is the latest escalation in a fight that began June 5, when security and New Orleans police removed five scientists from the ADA's annual meeting for distributing reprints of an editorial critical of federal cuts to diabetes research.

The editorial, written by Diabetes Care's editor-in-chief and three deputies, warned that National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget cuts threatened the diabetes research pipeline. In the months since, more than 200 ADA members signed an open letter demanding the resignations of chief executive Charles Henderson and chief scientific and medical officer Rita Kalyani, an independent investigation, a full apology, and restored editorial independence for the journal. The ADA has apologized and ordered a review but granted none of the demands.

Why it matters

If the boycott holds, the ADA's peer-review pipeline stalls and its leadership faces likely ouster over editorial independence.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

5
Scientists removed from ADA meeting
Removed June 5 for distributing editorial reprints at the annual meeting in New Orleans.
200+
Members signed open letter
Demanded resignations, an independent investigation, a full apology, and editorial independence.
98
Days from ouster to boycott
June 5 through September 11.
4
Demands in open letter
Resignations, independent investigation, full apology, restored editorial independence.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Play

Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.

Most of these play right now — no account needed. Sign up to save scores, keep a streak, and unlock Debate and Predict. Log in Sign Up
Predict 3 ways this could play out. Back the one you believe — contrarian picks score more when a scenario has a resolution date. Log in to play

People Involved

Organizations Involved

Timeline

April 2026 September 2026

6 events Latest: Today
Tap a bar to jump to that date
  1. Members launch boycott halting grant and article reviews

    Today Member Action

    ADA members begin refusing to review grants and new article submissions for Diabetes Care, directly disrupting the journal's operations.

  2. More than 200 members sign open letter demanding resignations

    Member Action

    Open letter to the ADA board demands resignations of Henderson and Kalyani, an independent investigation, a full apology, and restored editorial independence.

  3. ADA blocks journal publication of editors' account

    Governance

    STAT reports ADA leadership blocked publication of the editors' account of the June events in Diabetes Care, citing an ongoing review.

  4. ADA CEO apologizes, announces independent review

    Statement

    Charles Henderson issues a video apology to the removed scientists and the broader diabetes community, committing to an independent review.

  5. Police remove five scientists from ADA meeting

    Incident

    Security and New Orleans police escort Kahn, Gannon, Kelly, Ryder, and Schatz from the annual Scientific Sessions for handing out editorial reprints.

  6. Diabetes Care editorial warns NIH cuts threaten research

    Publication

    Editor-in-chief Steven Kahn and deputy editors publish an editorial criticizing NIH budget cuts and reduced opportunities for young investigators.

Historical Context

3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

February 2004

Union of Concerned Scientists reports political interference (2004)

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report documenting cases of political interference in federal science under the Bush administration. Thousands of scientists, including dozens of Nobel laureates, signed statements of protest.

Then

The report put political interference in science on the national agenda and drew wide media coverage.

Now

It established a pattern of scientific communities organizing collective responses when they perceive political meddling in research.

Why this matters now

The ADA members' boycott follows the same logic: a scientific community using collective action to push back against perceived political or organizational interference in research.

2015-2016

American Anthropological Association boycott debate (2015-2016)

Members proposed a resolution for the association to boycott Israeli academic institutions in line with the BDS movement. The proposal split the membership and leadership in heated debates about academic freedom, political neutrality, and the proper role of a scholarly society.

Then

The resolution failed by a narrow margin in 2016 but left deep divisions within the association.

Now

Academic boycotts remain a contested tool within scholarly societies, and the debate reshaped how such organizations approach political resolutions.

Why this matters now

Demonstrates how a political dispute inside a scholarly society can fracture the membership and prompt boycott proposals, much like the ADA's current fight.

February-June 2021

JAMA editor Howard Bauchner's forced resignation (2021)

JAMA published a podcast episode with remarks about structural racism that sparked a firestorm. Editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner first dismissed the criticism, then apologized after an internal investigation found he had not been forthcoming about how the episode came together.

Then

Bauchner resigned as JAMA editor in June 2021, and the episode damaged the journal's credibility.

Now

The case became a reference point for how medical journals handle politically charged content and editor accountability.

Why this matters now

Shows how a medical journal editor can be forced out by a political controversy, and how the public expects editors to answer for their decisions.

Sources

(9)