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.
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.
> that has little to do with the actual science of diabetes
Not the takeaway I got from the article. They describe specific research and specific dollar-drawdown amounts.
The tools of science are just as relevant as the science per se to the process of science. I may be extrapolating from the astronomical circles I’m more familiar with. But folks debating telescopes and whatnot is commonplace, political, and absolutely germane. In many of those cases, simply handing out an editorial wasn’t the norm—you’d have straight-up advocacy going on. The idea that a conference organizer would eject someone for distributing a published paper would be absurd.
> likely that the conference organisers want to encourage technical discussion in a polite low-politics environment
And it appears that is about their limit for politics at the event. They put their foot down at letting it turn into a debate club.
I suspect if Bhattacharya didn't control the purse strings somehow he wouldn't have been invited to talk politics either, I bet the organisers were gritting their teeth when they offered him a slot. And nothing short of a significant cash infusion being involved would have induced them to let him speak. This appears to be a technical conference.
> 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.
If it's such a non-issue, why should they have been forcefully ejected from the premises over it? And why do you feel so strongly that they should have been?
> And why do you feel so strongly that they should have been?
I don't. It makes literally no difference to me; especially since I've skimmed through the actual paper they were handing out anyway.
I'm just trying to figure out if there is actually an issue here or whether we're just having an anti-Trump session. And I'm arguing with JCC which is its own reward.
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.