1,178 people have signed the Notice of Boycott of the American Diabetes Association. This page reports, in aggregate, what they hold within the ADA and what they lead outside it — and what the Association loses for as long as the boycott holds.
Read and sign the Notice of Boycott
At the ADA's 2026 Scientific Sessions in New Orleans, five senior physician-scientists were removed from the meeting and banned from it for handing out a Diabetes Care editorial — published in the ADA's own journal — about federal cuts to biomedical research. The Association said they were removed for disruptive conduct; video and witness accounts do not support that, and the day after the removals the ADA added the words “such as protesting” to the conference code of conduct it had cited. In July, ADA leadership blocked publication of an editorial and seven opinion pieces that Diabetes Care had already accepted about the events. In September an internal review — reporting to the same Board whose conduct was in question — cleared the Association, announced in a press release the Board later conceded it had issued before reading the findings. We are withdrawing our work from the ADA until its Board permits a genuinely independent, externally led review of the Association's structure and governance.
Last updated 13 October 2026
Where things stand
1,178
people have signed the Notice of Boycott
Disclaimer:Every number on this page is a minimum, not an estimate. A signatory is counted in a category only where their own words, a public source, or the ADA member directory put them there. Roles that nobody wrote down are counted nowhere.
6 October 2026 — the ADA's own journal speaks
Diabetes published an editorial by its editor-in-chief and two letters to the ADA Board, one signed by D'Alessio and 23 colleagues and one by members of the Pathway to Stop Diabetes mentor committee. Links below.
28 September 2026 — the bylaws are still not public
The ADA does not post its current bylaws, so no member can check whether the removals followed its own rules. ADCES and AACE publish theirs. If you have a copy, please send it.
28 September 2026 — the code of conduct was edited after the removals
“Protesting” was added to the prohibited-conduct list on 6 June, the day after the five were removed. Compare the archived versions.
Background, in the words of the Notice of Boycott
At the 2026 ADA Scientific Sessions on 5 June, five senior physician-scientists were removed from the meeting and banned from it for handing out a Diabetes Care editorial about federal research-funding cuts (Washington Post). ADA leadership said they had disrupted the meeting; video published by MedPage Today and witness accounts say otherwise, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression noted that no evidence supported the disruption claim. The CEO apologised five days later and promised a review.
On 13 July the ADA blocked publication of an editorial and seven opinion pieces that Diabetes Care had already accepted on what happened in New Orleans (STAT). The authors posted all eight to a preprint server instead, where they can still be read.
Senior figures resigned or issued statements. Every living Banting Medalist and every member of the ADA Emeritus Council wrote to the Board. More than 8,000 people signed a Change.org petition. On 21 July, current and former ADA members, many of them serving editors, committee members and volunteer leaders, sent the Board four demands: removal of the CEO and others involved, a genuinely independent investigation by people with no prior ADA relationship, an unconditional public apology to the five, and restoration of editorial independence at Diabetes Care (STAT).
On 1 September the ADA issued a press release saying its own Audit and Governance Committee, which reports to the Board under scrutiny, had cleared the Association's conduct, timed alongside an op-ed from the CEO defending those conclusions. STAT reported the same day that the findings were still being sent to the Board for action. Within a week the Board put out a second statement conceding it had not yet read the committee's findings.
The boycott took effect on 9 September 2026 and holds until the Board permits a review of the ADA's structure and function led by an independent academic leader.
And why counting roles is the point
Signatories are withdrawing from ADA meeting planning and attendance, including the 2027 Scientific Sessions; from Board-led activity on the New Orleans investigation; and from presentations, fundraisers, grant reviews, manuscript reviews, journal management, manuscript submissions and position statements.
That is why the annotation matters. A list of 1,178 names says one thing. A list showing that it includes the people who chair the committees, edit the journals and sit on the grant panels says something considerably harder to answer.
Counted where a signatory appears in the category at all; one person can appear in several
| Role | Signatories |
|---|---|
| ADA member (confirmed or stated) | 571 |
| Committee or council service | 118 |
| Journal editorial role | 96 |
| Grant reviewer or ADA-funded | 65 |
| Volunteer, advocacy or donor | 37 |
| Award recipient | 36 |
| National governance or officer | 47 |
| Committee or council leadership | 20 |
| Chapter or affiliate leadership | 15 |
Academic and institutional positions held by people on the list
| Position | Signatories |
|---|---|
| Professor at any rank | 258 |
| Practising clinician | 564 |
| Research scientist | 255 |
| Endowed or named chair | 47 |
| Centre, institute or programme director | 39 |
| Division chief or head | 10 |
| Dean or university leadership | 7 |
| Department chair or head | 5 |
| Leadership in another professional society | 11 |
| Elected to a national academy | 7 |
Disclaimer:The leadership figures are the weakest on this page. Five department chairs is not a real count of department chairs who signed. It is a count of department chairs whose entry happened to say so. Someone who typed "Provider" is recorded as a clinician and nothing more.
A test of the one external source available
Thirty-four signatories have been independently verified against public sources as holding senior academic or ADA positions. Of those, 16 appear in the ADA's public member directory and 18 do not — and eight of the eighteen are based outside the United States, which a fifty-state directory cannot list at all.
Among the US-based verified names, roughly two in three appear. The ones missing include an ADA award recipient, a former Diabetes Care associate editor, and a past president of another major endocrine society. Absence from the directory is not evidence of non-membership.
The signature form asks for your name and titles and for your ADA affiliations, committees and editorial positions — all in free text, which is why the answers range from a full record to a single word. Nothing about committee service, abstract review, chapter work or grant panels is findable on the open web. If any of the following apply to you and your entry does not say so, send them through the form again:
Practical guidance for people holding to the boycott
Decline, and say why. Silence reads as unavailability; a stated reason is part of the point. One signatory's wording, which you are welcome to use or adapt:
Thank you for thinking of me. However, I am supporting the boycott of the American Diabetes Association. I am unable to [participate in activity] until the ADA leadership agrees to restore full editorial independence of Diabetes Care, the board of directors invites a fully independent review of events of June 5th, ADA leadership takes responsibility for their role in the removal of professional members by armed security, and the organization commits to a policy of freedom of expression and scientific inquiry.
Replace the bracketed phrase with the specific request — review this manuscript, review abstracts, serve on the panel, speak at the session.
No. What signatories have withdrawn is work for the organisation: ADA meeting planning and attendance, including the 2027 Scientific Sessions; Board-led activity on the New Orleans investigation; and presentations, fundraisers, grant reviews, manuscript reviews, journal management, manuscript submissions and position statements. Clinical care is not part of it.
Questions the Association has not answered
No current bylaws appear anywhere on the ADA's public site. The Association publishes its Board of Directors and its Form 990 filings, but not the document that defines how it governs itself. Peer societies do: ADCES and AACE both post theirs openly. Without the bylaws, members cannot check what procedure applied to the removals and bans, who had authority to impose them, or what appeal exists.
The removals were justified under the attendee code of conduct. The Internet Archive shows that page was changed on 6 June 2026 — the day after — to add “such as protesting” to the prohibited-conduct list. Whatever the intent, the version now cited is not the version that was in force on 5 June.
November 2025
“Inappropriate conduct, including but not limited to harassment; threatening or unwelcome physical or verbal actions; or disorderly or disruptive conduct, will not be tolerated.”
June 2026 — added restriction
“Inappropriate conduct, including but not limited to harassment; threatening or unwelcome physical or verbal actions; or disorderly or disruptive conduct such as protesting, will not be tolerated.”
The Audit and Governance Committee reports to the Board whose conduct was in question. The Board then conceded it had not read the findings before the Association publicised them.
The only public membership record is an opt-in directory. Tested against signatories independently confirmed to hold ADA roles, it listed fewer than half. Anyone assessing who has withdrawn is working from an undercount, and no complete roster is available to correct it.
Committee seats, abstract review, grant panels and chapter work appear in no searchable record. The people who did that work are the only source for it, which is why this page asks signatories directly rather than relying on what can be looked up.
Including the ADA's own statements, so readers can weigh both accounts