Boycott Against the American Diabetes Association Unfolds

Members of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) have recently initiated a boycott in response to the organization’s handling of a situation involving police removal of five researchers from its annual meeting in June. These researchers were upheld for distributing an editorial that criticized federal research funding cuts.

The boycott, which is effective immediately, was directed at the board of directors. The notice criticizes the ADA for not only shifting its justifications over the months but also for failing to issue an apology or conduct a truly independent review despite assurances from the CEO. It’s pretty disappointing, honestly.

The editorial team of ADA’s main journal, Diabetes Care, has shown support for the boycott. Steven Kahn, the journal’s editor in chief and one of the researchers removed from the meeting, stated that they will not process submitted manuscripts while the boycott continues. In a LinkedIn post, he mentioned that it feels similar to a picket line—once you cross it, you’re not likely to be seen positively by your peers.

Kahn pointed out that the editors had put up a notice regarding the suspension of manuscript reviews on their submission page, but the ADA took it down. He expressed concern that potential authors might unknowingly submit work that won’t be processed, given the lack of notice.

On the other hand, the ADA maintains that the journal is continuing its usual operations, including accepting submissions.

As of Friday, more than 400 individuals, from former ADA presidents to award winners and other stakeholders, have signed the boycott. They emphasized that the leadership’s actions don’t align with their views or opinions anymore.

Those who have signed the boycott have committed to ceasing all activities associated with the ADA, which includes:

• A refusal to attend any ADA-led meetings, such as the upcoming 2027 Scientific Sessions.
• No participation in board-led investigations about the events at the meeting or any reports from the so-called independent committee.
• Disengagement from all ADA operations, including presentations, fundraising efforts, grant reviews, and journal submissions.

Following the meeting in June, tensions intensified. In July, leadership blocked several opinion pieces from being published—pieces that had previously been accepted by Diabetes Care and that responded to the June events.

Earlier this month, the ADA claimed that its internal investigation found the five researchers were removed for violating the code of conduct, rather than due to the content of their editorial. However, after facing backlash, they reversed their stance, acknowledging that the investigation is still ongoing, and noted their initial findings didn’t capture the full scope of the situation. A final report is anticipated soon.

Kahn criticized the ADA for “muzzling its members” and not providing honest answers. He stressed that leadership needs to be informed about the need for reform if the ADA aims to genuinely advocate for people with diabetes.

The signees of the boycott reject both the initial findings of the internal investigation and the leadership’s actions that followed. They remain committed to the ADA’s mission but will not continue their work until meaningful changes are made. They expressed a desire for the ADA board to allow an independent review of its structure and function to make sure it properly represents its professional membership.

If their demands are not met, the signees are prepared to seek partnerships with other medical societies, whether existing or newly formed. Before the boycott was formalized, over 8,000 people signed a petition on Change.org denouncing ADA leadership. Additionally, over 500 current and former members made clear their demands for the resignation of CEO Charles Henderson, an independent investigation, a public apology to the five researchers, and the reinstatement of editorial independence for Diabetes Care.