An independent panel of five volunteer investigators completed a review of events at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Scientific Sessions on June 5 in New Orleans. The review concluded that the removals of several attendees were prompted by repeated disruptions during a session, not by suppression of a particular viewpoint. It also found no evidence that ADA staff placed a call to the New Orleans Police Department. Some on-site security were off-duty police working as event security, but they were not acting in a law-enforcement role at ADA’s direction.
The panel examined the claim that the ADA had suppressed a viewpoint — specifically an editorial critical of federal research policy that had been published in Diabetes Care, the ADA’s own journal. The review found no merit to the claim of censorship. The editorial was published by ADA’s journal, so removal of attendees was not explained by suppression of that content.
Instead, the review attributed the removals to attendee behavior: repeated disruptions during the session that continued after multiple requests to stop. Those actions were judged by the review to violate the conference code of conduct and to interfere with the ability of others to participate in the meeting.
Security personnel were present at the session, as is typical for a meeting of this size. The review clarified that some security staff were off-duty police officers contracted as event security. The investigators found no evidence that anyone from the ADA called the New Orleans Police Department to intervene. The distinction the review makes is between off-duty officers serving as private security and formal involvement of local law enforcement at the ADA’s request.
ADA leadership accepted that staff and security missed opportunities for better communication before and during the disruption. The CEO stated that the organization did not get everything right and that the review highlights areas where ADA can improve response and communication. The CEO emphasized that accountability, including the independent review itself, is necessary to rebuild trust with members and the broader diabetes community.
The CEO reiterated the ADA’s long-held commitment to open debate. The ADA’s journal, Diabetes Care, has published critical viewpoints of federal research policy — including the editorial at the center of this controversy — which the organization cites as evidence that it does not suppress dissenting views in its publications.
The ADA said it will continue to allow and publish dissent while expecting that disagreement be expressed in ways that do not prevent others’ participation in the same meeting room. The organization framed this as a core value of scientific discourse: tolerating disagreement but not behavior that undermines collective participation.
The CEO placed the June events within a broader context of anxiety across the medical research community about proposed federal funding cuts. He noted that significant cuts to diabetes research had been proposed in recent budget cycles and that the ADA has worked to oppose policy moves that would politicize grantmaking, including a White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposal described in his account.
The CEO described ADA advocacy efforts opposing the OMB proposal and noted that the Senate added language to a pending continuing resolution to block the rule from taking effect; ADA is pressing for similar language in the House. He argued that much proposed damage has not yet materialized because of advocacy by groups including the ADA.
The CEO framed the release of the independent review as part of rebuilding trust and urged the diabetes research and clinical community to avoid fracturing. He asked the community to hold two priorities at once: pursue a clear-eyed accounting of what occurred on June 5, and unite against larger policy threats to diabetes research and prevention funding.
He acknowledged the organization’s responsibility where it fell short and committed to closing communication gaps that may have contributed to the frustration expressed at the meeting. The CEO stressed that hours spent contesting the narrative of a single day detract from collective action on the policy issues that will shape the next decade of diabetes research.
The ADA’s CEO, Charles “Chuck” Henderson, presented the independent review findings directly and reiterated the association’s commitments: to open debate, to advocacy for research funding, and to improving internal communication and accountability where the organization erred. He urged researchers, clinicians, and advocates to remain allied in confronting policy threats to the diabetes field.
Charles “Chuck” Henderson is the CEO of the American Diabetes Association.