Trump-kritiska forskare portades från stor diabeteskonferens
Flera forskare blev i helgen utslängda av polis från en stor diabeteskonferens s
edan de delat ut kopior på en artikel – en ledartext – som bland annat innehöll
kritik mot Trump-administrationens indragna forskningsanslag.
I helgen höll American diabetes association (ADA) sin stora forskarkonferens Scientific sessions i New Orleans. På plats fanns bland annat Steven Kahn, chefredaktör för ADA-tidskriften Diabetes Care, som tidigare i år publicerat en ledarartikel, där han och flera andra forskare bland annat kritiserat Trump-administrationens förslag att dra ner på NIH:s anslagen nästa år.
I ledarartikeln beskriver forskarna sin oro för hur olika förändringar som amerikanska hälsodepartementet vill genomföra kommer att påverka den biomedicinska forskningen i stort, och pekar på olika typer av negativa effekter som Trump-administrationen redan har haft på diabetesforskningen sedan januari år 2025. »Det räcker inte längre att passivt stå vid sidan av eller att arbeta bakom kulisserna tillsammans med lagstiftare«, skriver forskarna. »Dessutom är det inte längre lämpligt att oroa sig för politiska motreaktioner«, fortsätter artikeln.
På morgonen, på konferensens första dag, passade chefredaktören och flera andra diabetesforskare på att dela ut kopior på ledarartikeln till förbipasserande konferensdeltagare. Tilltaget ogillades av anordnaren av konferensen – alltså ADA – och Steven Kahn samt flera av hans kollegor blev eter en stund portade från konferensområdet, rapporterar flera amerikanska medier.
I en video, publicerad på den amerikanska nyhetssajten MedPage Today, syns hur Aaron Kelly, som forskar om obesitas hos barn, först knuffas av en polis och därefter blir fråntagen de ledarartiklar som han håller i handen.
I en annan video säger samma forskare att han och flera andra hotades att bli gripna för att de delat ut artikeln. Efter att forskarna slängts ut tog de sig ändå in till konferensområdet igen genom en annan ingång, men blev utkörda på nytt.
Från www.lakartidningen.se Maja Lundbeck
_____________________________________________
Video: Police Tussle With Diabetes Experts at ADA Meeting
— Researchers told they could no longer attend the annual scientific sessions
NEW ORLEANS — Members of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) were escorted by police out of the convention center in New Orleans during the organization’s annual meeting on Friday as they handed out copies of an editorial
criticizing Trump administration changes to U.S. biomedical research.
Among them was Steven Kahn, MBChB, the lead author of the editorial, which published online in late April in the organization’s flagship journal, Diabetes Care. Kahn is also the editor in chief of the journal.
Kahn, Aaron Kelly, PhD, past ADA president Desmond Schatz, MD, Justin Ryder, PhD, Irl Hirsch, MD, and at least one other member were handing out printed copies of the editorial outside of a keynote speech given by an NIH official. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, was supposed to give the talk, but pulled out at the last minute, Kahn told MedPage Today.
Kahn said ADA leadership had inserted a statement in the editorial that the organization ”had nothing to do with the writing of this manuscript. That is their insert.”
ADA’s media team confirmed that five registrants were removed for violating code of conduct rules that they agreed to when registering for the meeting.
”These attendees were escorted out by our onsite event security because they demonstrated behavior not consistent with this code of conduct,” the media team said in a statement. ”They were respectfully given the opportunity to cease this behavior and chose not to which is why they were escorted out.”
The code of conduct ”ensures that the meeting remains safe, productive, and centered on advancing diabetes science,” according to the statement.
A video
https://cdn.jwplayer.com/previews/415GqxOu-n8kVRS21
taken by MedPage Today shows Kelly, a pediatric obesity expert from Minnesota, being shoved by an officer wearing a badge of a local Constable’s office, with Louisiana State Police following close behind. A plainclothes security agent rips the editorials from Kahn’s hands. Kahn is then asked to step outside with the officers and security detail.
In a separate video
provided to MedPage Today, Kahn and Ryder were shown outside of the convention center talking with police after they were escorted outside. Kelly, who was also outside taking the video, said they were ”threatened to be arrested for handing out the editorial.”
”They physically grabbed us, forced us out of the conference center, and now are telling us we can no longer attend this meeting. They’re taking our lanyards,” Kelly said.
”It really has come to this in America. Censorship is real,” said Kelly. ”America needs to stand up. Scientists, stand up. Physicians, stand up.”
In a text message to MedPage Today, Kahn said he and colleagues subsequently walked to another part of the convention center and ”they caught up with us again and told us if we come in again we will be arrested.”
Kahn said he has written to ADA to be allowed to re-enter the meeting as he is due to give a talk, present a poster, and chair a session.
The editorial, which was co-authored by John Buse, MD, PhD, and others, is titled: ”Misguided Brushes of a Pen Continue to Dismantle and Destroy Biomedical Research in the United States: We Can No Longer Afford Complacency and Fear. We Must All Act Now!”
It criticizes the Trump administration’s requested 2027 budget that seeks a $5 billion reduction to NIH
along with the numerous changes to HHS and the NIH made since January 2025. It also details the many impacts to diabetes research funding since that time.
”There is an urgent need for all of us to bring attention to these destructive processes and halt them before the ongoing and proposed dissolution and destruction of critical components of our biomedical research infrastructure are completed. Enough is enough!” the editorial stated.
”It is no longer enough to stand idly by or work behind the scenes with lawmakers. Moreover, it is no longer appropriate to fret about political backlash,” it continued. ”Now is the time to recognize and fight to reverse the spiraling fall of the United States of America’s status as the foremost nation in health care innovation.”
From www.medpage.com
________________________________________________________________________
The petition “An Open Letter to the American Diabetes Association: Shame on You”
Our goal is to reach 1,500 signatures and we need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here:
https://c.org/mVhs6TFBx7
______________________________
Läs aktuell editorial
Editprial
Diabetes Care
Misguided Brushes of a Pen Continue to Dismantle and Destroy Biomedical Research in the United States: We Can No Longer Afford Complacency and Fear.
We Must All Act Now!
Steven E. KahnCorresponding Author ; Cheryl A.M. Anderson; John B. Buse ; Elizabeth Selvin
Diabetes Care 2026;49(6):901–905
https://doi.org/10.2337/dci26-0068
The opinions expressed in this editorial are the personal views of the authors (S.E. Kahn, C.A.M. Anderson, J.B. Buse, and E. Selvin) and do not represent those of the American Diabetes Association or the authors’ employers. The American Diabetes Association had no role in the development or writing of this manuscript. The authors declare that they receive honoraria from the American Diabetes Association for serving as editors of Diabetes Care and are recipients of grant awards from the National Institutes of Health. There are no other relevant conflicts of interest.
Just a year ago, in these very pages, we highlighted the many threats the current U.S. administration posed to the health of our nation (1).
Since then, there have been actions by the administration that have caused grave health consequences, and their current approach will continue to do so.
The numerous measles outbreaks and associated avoidable deaths have resulted in part from hyping disproven theories of harm rather than publicizing the effectiveness of the measles vaccine (2). Plugging the concept that diabetes is curable by “changing the food source” (3) simply ignores the large body of work that has demonstrated that it is not merely a disease of poor nutrition and the immense challenges of reinventing the food industry.
Peddling conspiracy theories represents failures by officials of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), whose primary goal is to protect our health. These two examples represent just two of the broken promises made by the current HHS leadership during their confirmation hearings (4,5). And, despite promising oversight, representatives on Capitol Hill have shirked their responsibility and have allowed the country to continue along misguided paths that even they recognized as irresponsible (4).
We are not only naysayers; we do wish to give credit where credit is due. Both Republicans and Democrats loudly and firmly rejected the White House’s proposed nearly $18 billion reduction in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for fiscal year 2026. The result was a 1% increase in the total appropriation over that of fiscal year 2025, amounting to $47.5 billion. This signaled that the value of biomedical research is not lost on our elected representatives. We appreciate their steadfastness and resistance to surrendering to what would have destroyed decades of American advances in biomedical discovery and translation.
While one would think that this congressional action to preserve the NIH budget was a clear repudiation, it has not stopped President Trump from requesting a 2027 budget that now seeks a $5 billion reduction to NIH (6).
These proposed cuts would eliminate the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, which they claim “is replete with DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] expenditures,” the Fogarty International Center, which is responsible for funding degree programs in foreign countries that benefit the health of all, including Americans, and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, whose charge includes supporting research and offering information about complementary health approaches in the setting of whole-person health.
Other vital cores of the NIH that would be scaled back are the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Library of Medicine; the latter’s charge includes providing searchable access to the worldwide medical literature for scientists, clinicians, and patients around the world.
Threats to the U.S. biomedical research infrastructure are easy to understand when they involve reductions in appropriated dollars and cents. However, serious negative consequences arise when administrative changes are made without congressional approval or oversight. We have been witnessing significant changes imposed on NIH since the start of this administration.
The changes seem to be accelerating and occurring across the whole of NIH, without exception, thus impacting biomedical innovation in diabetes care and across every disease. From our perspective as investigators who have received federal research funding, these changes have and will continue to have detrimental effects on the NIH research infrastructure, with significant adverse trickle-down implications for universities and investigators.
These radical modifications have included a marked reduction in the NIH workforce, changes in medical advisory councils, a reduction in published notices of funding opportunities, and an ill-advised multiyear funding policy.
Early in 2025, the new administration implemented unplanned and haphazard “reductions in force” that targeted not only NIH scientific staff but also many behind-the-scenes personnel in each institute who were responsible for policy, compliance, and communications. It is very clear to many of us that this reduction in key staff has fractured the NIH infrastructure, leaving a huge void such that the NIH is failing to communicate with the general public, universities, and the investigators they serve.
At an administrative level, each NIH institute has a medical advisory council responsible for providing oversight and guidance to its staff. Each institute’s advisory council represents a second level of peer review and acts as the ultimate arbiter for the agency’s scientific and legal integrity. Each institute’s advisory council also provides approval for “concept clearance,” which is required to launch new research initiatives. Further, these medical advisory councils have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the American public’s tax dollars are properly expended by reviewing and approving each institute’s grant funding pay plan, thereby ensuring funding of the most innovative and impactful basic, clinical, and translational research.
Membership on these committees, which comprise subject matter experts from academia and nonprofit organizations, has finite terms, after which members are either reappointed or replaced. In the past year, neither has occurred, allowing the Trump administration to impose its political agenda with few questions asked. Since mid-2025, observations suggest the appointment process, which has included traditional nonpartisan vetting, is taking a worrisome turn and is now transitioning to more direct oversight by HHS leadership.
This transition is leading to significant and likely intentional delays in appointments, resulting in some institutes’ councils operating at only one-third capacity and many councils with massive backlogs in completing their responsibilities. In addition, the administration appears to be shifting membership expertise away from an academic and scientific focus to reflect broader administration priorities and including political appointees who frequently have no subject matter expertise.
A consequence of these changes is that the grant cycle is significantly slower and oversight of grant funding is no longer a required administrative step; it is now a deliberate policy alignment tool to ensure new research closely mirrors specific administrative political interests. As a result, meritorious scientific projects that aim to improve the lives of all Americans are not being funded. All of this is in line with what Dr. Francis Collins recently said: “Mix politics and science, you get politics. You kind of lose everything else.” (7).
Another new tactic is starting to severely hamper the ability of the NIH’s institutes to foster high-impact science. The plan, which is currently being instituted, reduces the number of Notices of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs) being issued. Over the first 13 months since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, NIH has issued only 84 NOFOs, compared with 787 the year before (8); this represents an 89% reduction. Examination of funding activity using NIH RePORTER data from the start of the current fiscal year on 1 October 2025 to the end of February 2026 reveals a truly troubling trend. This report, issued by the Association of American Universities, compared this fiscal year 2026 period to that of each of the first 5 months of 2021–2024 (9). It identified that the current number of grant awards has been reduced by about 66%, from nearly 3,000 to less than 1,000. In turn, this has reduced the research money provided to investigators by 54%, from just over $1.3 billion to about $600 million.
Why is this consequential for science overall and for diabetes research? NOFOs, an umbrella term that includes Program Announcements and Requests for Applications, encourage investigators to submit applications for a particular subject matter determined to be high priority by an institute’s scientific staff. Aside from the impact of the concerns of reduced grant funding laid out above, there are other significant core issues and implications for fewer NOFOs that include efficient oversight and scientific progress as prime examples. Further, and enormously important, while these calls for NOFOs used to be approved by each institute’s medical advisory council, approval now rests in the hands of the NIH Director’s office and HHS, the NIH’s parent agency, resulting in severe delays or even disapprovals. Furthermore, with fewer specific NOFOs being approved, more researchers are funneled into general pools, providing fewer opportunities to focus on specific gaps and needs identified by NIH. This is critical, as NOFOs have a variety of purposes, including 1) encouraging applications on specific topics ripe for discovery, generally supported by R01-type applications, 2) supporting large programs, including clinical trials, that involve investigators with particular expertise generally across multiple institutions, and 3) supporting a group of scientists with different areas of expertise who manage a center that provides specialized services to numerous investigators at their institution.
Therefore, by moving away from specific funding opportunities identified by NIH through workshops, from prior research, or from published data, the agencies lose the ability to cultivate expertise in emerging or rare fields or to address research gaps to improve overall health and reduce morbidity and mortality. What follows are examples of how this new approach to reducing NOFOs will affect diabetes research.
In the area of requested applications on specific topics in important areas, a good example is the Restoring Insulin Secretion (RISE) study. This request for applications followed the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth (SEARCH) and Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) studies, which respectively highlighted the increasing incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in youth and the inability of standard interventions to control glycemia in adolescents with type 2 diabetes (10). Using the R01 mechanism, in which applicants each proposed their own study designs, the worthiest applications were identified by peer review and funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK).
Thereafter, the seven selected sites developed a common protocol that employed sophisticated physiologic measurements to directly compare the pathophysiology and effect of interventions in youth and adults with prediabetes and recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. The study provided important new insights into the disease process in the two age groups, and its findings have been incorporated into the American Diabetes Association’s “Standards of Care in Diabetes” and are modifying clinical practice (11–13). As a result of this work, NIDDK is now supporting the Discovery of Risk Factors for Type 2 Diabetes in Youth (DISCOVERY) study, a major, multicenter research project that is enrolling children and adolescents with obesity into a study to identify early indicators of the rapid, aggressive progression of youth-onset type 2 diabetes during puberty (10).
Over the last few decades, NIDDK has supported numerous high-impact multicenter clinical trials. Two large ones were the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications (DCCT/EDIC) and the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) and its follow-up, the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS).
These studies have directly changed the lives of people with diabetes and those at high risk of developing the disease. DCCT/EDIC revolutionized the approach to treating people with type 1 diabetes, establishing standards for glucose control and resulting in improved quality of life along with clinically significant reductions in the risk of diabetes complications and major adverse cardiovascular events (14). After 44 years, it continues to provide new insights, including showing that in adults with type 1 diabetes, neurodegeneration is likely the result of non–Alzheimer disease mechanisms (15). DPP/DPPOS, which enrolled people with prediabetes, demonstrated the benefit of intensive lifestyle intervention and metformin in reducing the risk of developing diabetes (16).
These findings led Congress to approve an amendment to the Social Security Act to establish the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program and provide lifestyle intervention services for eligible individuals (17).
Aside from the primary outcome, numerous additional insights have been gained from these data, including the impact of diabetes prevention on macrovascular and microvascular disease as well as the cost-effectiveness and cost savings of the interventions (18). The study is now primarily supported by the National Institute on Aging and examines the impact of aging on diabetes and cognitive outcomes. In addition to these clinical trials that tested a single protocol, TrialNet is a consortium of clinical trial sites undertaking smaller clinical studies, each aimed at identifying an intervention and its mechanistic underpinnings for slowing or preventing the progression to or of type 1 diabetes (19). Out of this approach has emerged teplizumab, which was demonstrated in TrialNet to delay progression to clinical type 1 diabetes in first-degree relatives of individuals with type 1 diabetes (20). This CD3-directed monoclonal antibody has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prevent type 1 diabetes in people aged 8 years and older with stage 2 type 1 diabetes. As a result, we are a major step closer to a cure for type 1 diabetes. With the potential to prevent the disease, screening programs for type 1 diabetes are being initiated worldwide
NIDDK also supports multicenter initiatives that focus on basic science. Two examples are the Human Islet Research Network (HIRN) and the Integrated Islet Distribution Program (IIDP). HIRN aims to advance our understanding of how β-cells are lost in human type 1 diabetes and to find inventive strategies to protect or replace β-cells in people with the disease (21). It currently supports 126 investigators and has contributed to nearly 1,200 publications, including many collaborations in the United States and internationally. The IIDP supports the isolation and distribution of islets from a consortium of ten centers across the country to investigators all over North America. Since its inception, it has performed 2,639 isolations that have supported 634 studies and led to 1,126 publications (22). In 2025 alone, IIDP performed 90 human islet isolations, resulting in the distribution of over 7.84 million islet equivalents for research. The result of work supported by these resources has driven a greater understanding of β-cell function, loss, and regeneration in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
The NIDDK “center grant” programs have also been hugely successful. This mechanism provides support to a group of investigators, typically at one or more academic institutions, to provide cutting-edge resources to investigators at their institution and in their region. Those center programs focused on diabetes include the Diabetes Research Centers, Centers for Diabetes Translation Research, Cystic Fibrosis Research and Translation Centers, Nutrition Obesity Research Centers, and Mouse Metabolic Phenotyping Centers (23). Applications for these centers require the inclusion of scientific cores, a pilot and feasibility program, and an enrichment program. Thus, aside from the value to the individual researcher who wants to use a core to incorporate into their work methodologies that their own group cannot deliver, they also help support 1) new ideas, particularly from early-career investigators, that provide the necessary preliminary data for larger grants and more discovery and 2) presentations by internal and external speakers that foster dissemination of scientific knowledge and, importantly, result in the establishment of new collaborations. The seeds of numerous scientific advances have been planted through the science supported by these centers.
The actions of the Trump administration are reducing opportunities for NIH to implement and fund multicenter consortia, specialized research centers, and large networks and to conduct long-term, sustained programs to address complex issues, including those in diabetes. If this policy continues, it will greatly reduce the number of funded programs or even eliminate them. Will the reduction and elimination of these major programs be in the best interest of science and improve the health of the American public in general and individuals with diabetes in particular? What problem(s) are we trying to solve?
Aside from the concerns regarding the reduction in force, changes in advisory council practice, and reduction in NOFOs that are dismantling the ability of the NIH to function effectively, another major concern, and perhaps the most worrisome, is how the NIH is being forced to spend its money with the practice of “multiyear forward funding” (MYF). In late 2025, NIH was required by the Office of Management and Budget to start funding for the entirety of a multiyear grant (e.g., a 5-year project) up front in year 1, rather than paying for it, as has been customary, year by year. Should this approach continue, the implications are quite dire for investigators and science. As an example, if an institute has $10 million to spend on grants, and an average award is $500,000, it can support 20 awards for that year. However, if required to spend 50% on MYF, that means it can use $5 million to support ten grants at $500,000 each while using the other $5 million to support two grants each funded for 5 years. Thus, with a request for each institute to spend 50% of its allocation as MYF each year, a 40% reduction in the number of grants funded from the prior year will be the outcome. Thus, MYF clearly is a tool being used by the administration that will markedly and quickly deplete congressional appropriations, put at risk available funds for innovative science in future years, and limit vital research funding for current investigators. The net result will include the unthinkable: researchers being forced out of science and fewer people considering biomedical investigation as a career. Are we ready to watch the crippling of scientific advances in diabetes and all other diseases?
Given the proposed budget cuts and the reduction in opportunities for scientists with appropriate expertise to continue their work and drive new science, we as clinicians, scientists, and U.S. citizens call on members of all communities in our country to make their thoughts known. While we have focused this editorial on diabetes, the threat is not limited to this disease. The proposed changes could affect progress for every disease and every American. There is an urgent need for all of us to bring attention to these destructive processes and halt them before the ongoing and proposed dissolution and destruction of critical components of our biomedical research infrastructure are completed. Enough is enough! We call on all concerned citizens of our beloved country to contact their congressional representatives to declare their alarm about what is happening at HHS. We also request that all organizations established to ensure the health and welfare of U.S. citizens clearly and loudly make their voices heard and declare their alarm about what is happening at HHS. It is no longer enough to stand idly by or work behind the scenes with lawmakers. Moreover, it is no longer appropriate to fret about political backlash. Now is the time to recognize and fight to reverse the spiraling fall of the United States of America’s status as the foremost nation in health care innovation. As a nation, we must continue to believe in ensuring better health for al
A few brushes of a pen, some clearly visible through budget requests, others less so through internal machinations, are rapidly destroying what generations have built. We can no longer afford complacency and fear. We must all act now!
The opinions expressed in this editorial are the personal views of the authors (S.E. Kahn, C.A.M. Anderson, J.B. Buse, and E. Selvin) and do not represent those of the American Diabetes Association or the authors’ employers. The American Diabetes Association had no role in the development or writing of this manuscript. The authors declare that they receive honoraria from the American Diabetes Association for serving as editors of Diabetes Care and are recipients of grant awards from the National Institutes of Health. There are no other relevant conflicts of interest.
Article Information
Acknowledgments. The opinions expressed in this editorial are the personal views of the authors (S.E. Kahn, C.A.M. Anderson, J.B. Buse, and E. Selvin) and do not represent those of the American Diabetes Association or the authors’ employers.
Duality of Interest. The authors declare that they receive honoraria from the American Diabetes Association for serving as editors of Diabetes Care and are recipients of awards from NIH. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.
References
1. Anderson CAM, Buse JB, Kahn SE, SelvinE. The forces reshaping America’s health landscape for people with diabetes—this is not about DEI, this is about whether people live or DIE. Diabetes Care 2026;49:5–6
Google ScholarCrossref PubMed
2. Parums DV. A review of the resurgence of measles, a vaccine-preventable disease, as current concerns contrast with past hopes for measles elimination. Med Sci Monit2024;30:e944436
Google ScholarPubMed
3. Sievers C. RFK Jr. touts IHS funding at tribal conference while spreading false claims about diabetes. Arizona Mirror, 8 April 2026. Accessed 10 April 2026. Available from Link to RFK Jr. touts IHS funding at tribal conference while spreading false claims about diabeteshttps://azmirror.com/2026/04/08/rfk-jr-touts-ihs-funding-at-tribal-conference-while-spreading-false-claims-about-diabetes
Google Scholar
4. S.Hrg. 119-21 – Nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. To Serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services, 119th Cong (2025). Washington, DC, U.S. Government Publishing Office
5. Hearings to examine the nomination of Jayanta Bhattacharya, of California, to be Director of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, 119th Cong (2025). Accessed 10 April 2026. Available from Link to Hearings to examine the nomination of Jayanta Bhattacharya, of California, to be Director of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, 119th Conghttps://www.congress.gov/event/119th-congress/senate-event/336682
6. Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2027. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2026
7. Park A. Dr. Francis Collins led the NIH. Now, he fears for the future of science. Time, 20 March 2026. Accessed 14 April 2026. Available from Link to Dr. Francis Collins led the NIH. Now, he fears for the future of sciencehttps://time.com/7269521/nih-dr-francis-collins-future-of-science
8. Kaiser J. Delays in awards and funding calls worry NIH-funded researchers. Science, 3 March 2026. Accessed 14 April 2026. Available from Link to Delays in awards and funding calls worry NIH-funded researchershttps://www.science.org/content/article/delays-grant-awards-and-funding-calls-worry-nih-researchers
Google Scholar
9. Agarwal K. Data show dramatic slowdown in NIH grantmaking. Association of American Universities Newsletter, 20 March 2026. Accessed 14 April 2026. Available from Link to Data show dramatic slowdown in NIH grantmakinghttps://www.aau.edu/newsroom/leading-research-universities-report/data-show-dramatic-slowdown-nih-grantmaking
Google Scholar
10. Nadeau KJ, Mayer-Davis EJ, Gubitosi-KlugR, Zeitler PS, Kahn SE, Dabelea D; SEARCH, TODAY, RISE, and DISCOVERY study groups. Youth-onset type 2 diabetes: what we’ve learned from key youth-onset type 2 diabetes studies, what we still don’t know, and why it is important. Diabetes Care 2025;48:1136–1149
Google ScholarCrossref PubMed
11. RISE Consortium. Metabolic contrasts between youth and adults with impaired glucose tolerance or recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes: I. Observations using the hyperglycemic clamp. Diabetes Care2018;41:1696–1706
Crossref PubMed
12. RISE Consortium. Effects of treatment of impaired glucose tolerance or recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes with metformin alone or in combination with insulin glargine on β-cell function: comparison of responses in youth and adults. Diabetes 2019;68:1670–1680
Crossref PubMed
13. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee for Diabetes. 14. Children and adolescents: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2026. Diabetes Care2026;49(Suppl. 1):S297–S320
14. Braffett BH, Bebu I, Lorenzi GM, et al.; DCCT/EDIC Research Group. The NIDDK takes on the complications of type 1 diabetes: the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) study. Diabetes Care 2025;48:1089–1100
Google ScholarCrossref PubMed
15. Karger AB, Nasrallah IM, Braffett BH, et al.; DCCT/EDIC Research Group. Plasma biomarkers of brain injury and their association with brain MRI and cognition in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2024;47:1530–1538
Google ScholarCrossref PubMed
16. Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, et al.; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002;346:393–403
Google ScholarPubMed
17. H.R.7856 – PREVENT DIABETES Act, 118th Cong (2024). Accessed 14 April 2026. Available from Link to H.R.7856 – PREVENT DIABETES Acthttps://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7856
18. Crandall JP, Dabelea D, Knowler WC, Nathan DM, Temprosa M; DPP Research Group. The Diabetes Prevention Program and its outcomes study: NIDDK’s journey into the prevention of type 2 diabetes and its public health impact. Diabetes Care 2025;48:1101–1111
Google ScholarCrossref PubMed
19. Jacobsen LM, Felton JL, Nathan BM, Speake C, Krischer J, Herold KC. Type 1 diabetes TrialNet: leading the charge in disease prediction, prevention, and immunotherapeutic mechanistic understanding. Diabetes Care2025;48:1112–1124
Google ScholarCrossref PubMed
20. Herold KC, Bundy BN, Long SA, et al.; Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group. An anti-CD3 antibody, teplizumab, in relatives at risk for type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2019;381:603–613
Google ScholarCrossref PubMed
21. Parent AV, Agarwal A, Alvarez-DominguezJR, et al. Closing the gap between vision and victory in type 1 diabetes: the NIDDK Human Islet Research Network (HIRN) initiative. Diabetes 2025;74:1057–1067
Google ScholarCrossref PubMed
22. IIDP. Integrated Islet Distribution Program: providing high quality human islets to the diabetes research community, 2026. Accessed 8 April 2026. Available from Link to Integrated Islet Distribution Program: providing high quality human islets to the diabetes research communityhttps://iidp.coh.org
23. Silva CM, Thornton PL, Artis Dickerson S, et al. Celebrating the past, present, and future of NIDDK-supported research centers focused on diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolic diseases. Diabetes 2025;74:1099–1106
Google ScholarCrossref PubMed
Nyhetsinfo
www red DiabetologNytt