A group of diabetes researchers, clinicians, and other professional members has launched a boycott of the American Diabetes Association (ADA), citing concerns about the organization’s handling of the removal of five researchers from its annual Scientific Sessions in June 2026.
The boycott follows a disputed internal review of the incident and growing criticism of the ADA’s leadership and governance.
More than 400 people had signed the boycott notice as of Friday, September 11, according to MedPage Today, including former ADA presidents, award recipients, committee members, journal editors, and people affected by diabetes.
The dispute centers on events at the ADA Scientific Sessions in New Orleans on June 5, 2026. Five researchers — Steven Kahn, MB, ChB, Maureen Gannon, PhD, Aaron Kelly, PhD, Justin Ryder, PhD, and Desmond Schatz, MD — were escorted from the meeting after distributing copies of an editorial published in the ADA journal Diabetes Care.
The editorial criticized cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding and what its authors described as government interference in medical research.
Following the incident, ADA CEO Charles Henderson issued an apology to the five researchers affected, and announced that an independent review would be conducted.
However, the findings of that review have since become a major source of disagreement.
On September 1, 2026, the ADA announced that its Audit and Governance Committee (AGC) had concluded that the five attendees were removed because of conduct that disrupted the meeting and violated the organization’s attendee code of conduct. The organization said the content of the material they were distributing was unrelated to their removal.
The ADA also said its review found that event security personnel had acted appropriately. Although the researchers were escorted out by individuals wearing New Orleans Police Department uniforms, the organization said these individuals were contracted security personnel rather than police officers called by the ADA.
The report acknowledged “communication shortcomings” before and during the incident and proposed measures, including improved communication, additional training for staff and volunteers, and revisions to policies governing large meetings.
The findings did not satisfy members involved in the boycott. Critics argue that the review was not sufficiently independent because it was conducted by an ADA committee rather than an external organization.
Read more:Betis 1-0 Real Madrid (Sep 4, 2026) Game Analysis – ESPN
The controversy intensified when the ADA issued a second statement on September 6. The organization said the initial findings released on September 1 had not considered the “full breadth and depth” of the investigation and that additional information could clarify or correct some of the earlier conclusions.
A final report is expected to be presented to the ADA board in the coming weeks.
The boycott notice calls on the ADA board to permit a formal review of the organization’s structure and function, led by independent academic members, with the aim of ensuring that the organization properly represents its professional membership.
Those supporting the boycott have pledged to suspend a broad range of ADA-related activities. These include attending meetings led by ADA leadership or the board, including the 2027 Scientific Sessions, participating in board-led activities related to the investigation; presenting at ADA events, reviewing grants, submitting manuscripts, managing journals, and contributing to position statements.
The group states that the boycott will remain in place until their demands are addressed.
Rather than resigning from their ADA positions, some participants say they chose a boycott in an effort to pressure the organization to reform its leadership while retaining their commitment to its mission.
The boycott has also attracted support from senior figures within the ADA’s journal system.
Steven Kahn, MB, ChB, one of the five researchers removed from the June meeting and editor-in-chief of Diabetes Care, said the journal’s editorial leadership had signed the boycott.
Medical News Today contacted Kahn for comment, but he did not respond before the publication deadline.
In a September 10 statement, Kahn said that, until the dispute was resolved, they would not perform their editorial duties and the journal would not accept new submissions.
The move could have implications for researchers who routinely use Diabetes Care to publish clinical diabetes research.
However, the ADA has disputed this characterization, stating the journal was continuing its regular publication processes, including accepting submissions.
Kahn previously said that the journal’s editors had posted a notice informing potential authors that manuscript reviews were suspended, but that the ADA subsequently removed the notice from the journal’s submission page.
The disagreement over the journal adds another layer to an already significant conflict between ADA leadership and members of the diabetes research community.
The boycott follows months of criticism directed at the ADA. More than 8,000 people have reportedly signed a Change.org petition condemning the organization’s handling of the June incident.
The boycott organizers say their goal is not to undermine the ADA’s mission but to force changes that they believe are necessary to preserve it.
In their letter, the organizers said they remain committed to the ADA’s stated mission of improving the lives of people affected by diabetes, but argued that meaningful structural reform is required before they can resume participation.
The ADA, meanwhile, has said it remains focused on its mission while awaiting the final findings and recommendations from its board.
“The American Diabetes Association is the nation’s leading voluntary health organization fighting to end diabetes and helping people thrive,” an ADA spokesperson said in a statement. “As the review continues, we remain focused on serving the millions of people counting on us to deliver on our mission.”
However, for the researchers and clinicians supporting the boycott, the dispute is now about more than the events of a single conference. They are calling for a broader examination of how the ADA is governed and how effectively its leadership represents the scientists, healthcare professionals, and people with diabetes who make up its community.
If the group’s demands are not met, boycott supporters say they may instead align themselves with existing or newly formed professional organizations focused on diabetes, endocrinology, obesity, and metabolism.
