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

 

 

________

 

 

En slags ”ursäkt” från ADA till Dr Kahn et al som transporterades ut med polis vid mötet …

Please see response on behalf of the ADA to the events that occurred at the Scientific Sessions in New Orleans

 

https://diabetes.org/newsroom/press-releases/statement-american-diabetes-association-regarding-2026-scientific-sessions-video?auHash=wfpVvyVsEdGBTLpwMK1M1zFIQhnTzcYL-rsksnvRQR4

 

 

Märkligt men ändå positivt. Namngivna kollegor. som togs ifrån betald ADA batch, fick en ursäkt. De blev dock så kränkta att de åkte hem till respektive hem istället för konferens, dessutom utestängda,

ADA president tog upp att en utredning skulle göras från ADAs sida kring vad som hänt, varför det blev så, och huir förhindra liknande i fortsättningen

 

Konferensen kommer att ha en lång uppfartsbacke innan dess varumärke blir så att kollegor utabnför landet åker dit eller kolleger inom landet, efter kränkt mötes- och yttrandefrihet

 

www red DiabetologNytt

 

___________________________

 

HOT TOPIC FROM ADA 2026

 

Diabetes and Weight Management Treatments
New Drug Leads To Dramatic Weight Loss and Relief From Related Conditions
GLP-1-based medications have revolutionized blood sugar and weight management, but they aren’t effective for everyone. Eli Lilly, which makes the GLP-1/GIP drug Mounjaro (tirzepatide), is currently developing retatrutide, the first drug to target receptors for three hormones: GLP-1, GIP, and glucagon.

Late-stage trials have now confirmed that retatrutide can drive dramatic weight loss, so much so that experts are talking about the drug as a potential competitor to bariatric surgery. New studies show that over a year and a half of treatment, participants who took the highest dose of the drug lost 28% of their body weight. Those who completed an additional six months went on to lose over 30%.

Among people who started the trial with arthritis in their knees, reported pain declined by about 70%. For those with obstructive sleep apnea, breathing interruptions at night fell by more than 60%. In addition, over 95% of people with prediabetes reverted to blood sugar levels below the diagnostic threshold.

In a separate trial focused on people with type 2 diabetes, participants achieved impressive weight loss and reduced their A1C by about 2%, which is similar to currently available GLP-1 treatments.

💡 Why it matters: There are several more ongoing trials designed to assess the effects of retatrutide on heart, kidney, and liver health before the drug can be submitted for approval. If approved, retatrutide may become part of a wider set of treatment options for people who need more support with weight management and related health concerns.

Ultra-Long-Lasting Experimental GLP-1 Lowers Blood Sugar, Even at Low Doses
Before 2018, GLP-1 drugs had to be taken every day. Then Ozempic (semaglutide) came along and made weekly injections a reality. Now, researchers are developing options that could last a whole month.

One of these new ultra-long-lasting options is berobenatide, which has a slightly modified structure that allows it to stay active in the body longer than currently available options. In an early research trial, 133 people with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes took a placebo or one of four doses of berobenatide every week for seven months.

At the highest dose, participants lost an average of 15% of their body weight and lowered their A1C by 2.2%. Although people on the lowest dose achieved more modest body weight reductions of 2.5%, they still lowered their A1C by an average of 1.6%. Similar to other GLP-1 drugs, berobenatide had gastrointestinal side effects that researchers said were manageable for most people.

💡 Why it matters: Pfizer, the company developing berobenatide, is now recruiting people for larger phase 3 trials, including one focused on people with type 2 diabetes, where participants take weekly injections of berobenatide. There is a separate trial focused on people who have overweight or obesity but not type 2 diabetes that will explore the effectiveness of monthly injections.

Experimental GLP-1 Drug Reduces Body Weight and Liver Fat
Original GLP-1 medications like Ozempic target GLP-1 receptors alone, but lately, researchers have been developing treatments that target additional hormone receptors with overlapping metabolic effects.

A new drug being tested in clinical trials, survodutide, targets both GLP-1 and glucagon receptors. Glucagon famously raises blood sugar, but it also plays many other roles, including boosting fat metabolism. Early research shows that survodutide can cause weight loss and improve blood sugar management.

Now, large research trials have confirmed those early results. In a trial including 725 people with overweight or obesity, participants who took the highest dose for a year and a half lost an average of 13% of their body weight; those who took about half that dose lost 12%.

In a separate trial including 216 people with metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), 84% of participants taking survodutide reduced their liver fat by at least 30% over about a year of treatment. In addition, 50% who took the drug reduced their liver fat by more than 70%, which suggests a complete absence of liver disease.

💡 Why it matters: Many people have benefited from GLP-1 drugs already, but the options that exist now don’t help everyone and might not be the best choice in every context. If approved in the future, additional options like survodutide could give people with diabetes more flexibility to find the ideal treatment to help them achieve their health goals.

Advances in Cell Therapy
Could This New Experimental Drug Delay Type 1 Diabetes Indefinitely?
Right now, Tzield (teplizumab) is the only disease-modifying treatment for type 1 diabetes. It involves a single treatment course that can delay the onset of symptoms, but once its effects begin to wane, it cannot be administered again.

Biopharmaceutical company SAB Bio is developing a new experimental drug, SAB-142, that is similar to Tzield but works in a distinct way that may allow it to be administered multiple times over the course of a person’s life. So far, SAB-142 has been tested on six people with stage 3 type 1 diabetes and 62 people without the condition. The four people with type 1 diabetes who received SAB-142 saw improvements in blood sugar management and C-peptide levels, which indicate insulin production in the pancreas.

💡 Why it matters: Though still very early in the research phase, data indicate that SAB-142 can be administered multiple times over a person’s lifetime, suggesting that it could potentially delay type 1 diabetes progression indefinitely. The company is now recruiting children and adults who have recently been diagnosed with stage 3 type 1 diabetes for a larger clinical trial to test the effectiveness of the drug in delaying disease progression and preserving insulin production. Participants will receive two courses of the treatment spaced six months apart.

Closer to a Cure: What Life Looks Like After an Islet Transplant
Research related to islet cell transplantation tends to focus on clinical outcomes, such as insulin production, C-peptide levels (a measure of how much insulin the body is producing), and cell survival. A study presented at ADA took a different approach, aiming to better understand the experiences of people who have had the treatment.

In Edmonton, Canada, where the cell therapy has been performed for more than two decades, those who’ve had the treatment described benefits that went beyond glucose, such as reduced fear of hypoglycemia, relief from constant vigilance, and greater flexibility in daily life.

”It’s freedom,” said one person from the study who remained insulin-free 15 years after transplantation. ”I’ve been so blessed to live those life moments with my family, and to feel the good, the bad, and the ugly. I’ve been there through it all, and I’ve been able to be fully present and to live how I want to. So, freedom it is.”

Experts described a perception gap around islet transplantation, which is often seen as a last resort. People may underestimate the daily risks and burden of living with type 1 diabetes while overestimating the risks of immunosuppression.

The discussion also emphasized that islet transplantation is not a simple option and carries risk. While stem-cell-derived treatments are in clinical trials, the supply of islets used in currently approved procedures typically comes from deceased donors and is limited. After the transplant, lifelong immunosuppressants are required, and islet cells may stop working over time.

One recipient developed post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD), a serious complication that can occur in people taking immunosuppressive drugs after transplant and may progress to lymphoma. However, the person who developed PTLD said he does not regret having the transplant and still frames the experience in terms of hope and access to a comprehensive care team.

💡 Why it matters: This research showed that, for many people with type 1 diabetes, the considerations go beyond glucose numbers or full insulin independence. For many recipients, the experience was positive, even when clinical outcomes were mixed or complications occurred. More ways to measure how islet transplantation can affect daily life for recipients could help people with diabetes, families, healthcare providers, and policymakers better understand who may benefit from islet transplantation.

Risk Reduction and Diabetes Management Tips
Combo of Short and Longer Exercise Sessions May Show Best Results
Exercise is a crucial part of blood sugar management, but that doesn’t mean you have to spend hours a day at the gym. For instance, you could go for a walk every morning, but then spend a good portion of the day working on the computer.

At ADA, researchers shared data on the health benefits of taking movement breaks throughout the day. A small study recruited 75 people with type 2 diabetes who committed to four one-minute bouts of exercise per day for three months. Although participants did not see much change in their A1C values or cholesterol levels, they did experience a decrease in blood pressure and reported that they felt healthier. The intensity of exercise during that one minute did not appear to matter.

Another small study of 48 people with prediabetes compared the health benefits of continuous exercise and “exercise snacks.” Over three months, half of the participants agreed to move around for five minutes every hour for nine hours, while the other half went for one 45-minute walk every day. Both groups saw improvements in their blood sugar variability, cholesterol, and body fat percentages, but only the group that went for longer walks improved their insulin sensitivity.

💡 Why it matters: Many people work long hours at desk jobs. Even if you don’t have time for a trip to the gym, getting up and moving at regular intervals is beneficial. Still, longer exercise sessions seem to have unique benefits that your body won’t get from shorter bouts of exercise. For best results, try to make time for longer, more intensive physical activity and shorter movement breaks throughout the day.

Early Type 1 Diabetes Detection Programs Eliminated New-Onset DKA
Though there is autoantibody testing that can detect type 1 diabetes before a person starts to show symptoms, 30-40% of people with new-onset type 1 diabetes are diagnosed after they are already in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), a life-threatening medical emergency.

At this year’s ADA conference, Sarah Lydia Holly from the Children’s National Hospital discussed a collaborative effort to improve early-stage type 1 diabetes screening at six pediatric centers across the U.S. Holly and her colleagues worked with healthcare providers at each clinic to increase screening rates and subsequent monitoring. Over 20 months, the centers screened 1,743 people; none of those who ended up diagnosed with type 1 diabetes experienced DKA.

Many people who were diagnosed before stage 3 type 1 diabetes (when symptoms are present and insulin is required) were eligible for Tzield (teplizumab), but only 36% initiated treatment. Those who declined cited logistical and financial concerns, as well as worries about the burden of the treatment itself. Further improvements in screening and monitoring programs could offer more opportunities for clinicians to understand how best to support people as they make decisions about treatment opportunities.

💡 Why it matters: Up to 85% of people who develop type 1 diabetes do not have a family history of it, which is why preventing new-onset cases of DKA will require more general screening efforts. Until then, people with a family history of type 1 diabetes can request antibody screening through programs like ASK and TrialNet. Getting a diagnosis before symptoms start makes the transition to insulin therapy safer and easier.

Olezarsen Reduces High Triglycerides and Pancreatitis Risk in People With Diabetes
People with diabetes, particularly those with untreated or difficult-to-manage diabetes, are at higher risk for severe high triglycerides (HTG), which can lead to acute pancreatitis, a serious, potentially life-threatening complication.

New research presented at ADA showed that olezarsen (Tryngolza) – a medication currently approved for a rare genetic disorder that causes high triglycerides – can also benefit people with diabetes and severe HTG. Over 12 months, study participants taking olezarsen reduced their triglyceride levels by up to 65% (on top of other available medications) and reduced the rate of acute pancreatitis by 81%. Participants’ A1C increased by an average of 0.26%, but researchers noted this change isn’t likely significant for most people with diabetes and severe HTG.

💡 Why it matters: Currently available treatments for severe high triglyceride levels without a genetic cause have limited effectiveness. More long-term research is needed, but based on these study results, olezarsen could potentially be a new treatment option. The drug is currently under priority review by the FDA, with a decision on approval expected by the end of June 2026.

Can Activity Trackers Reduce Diabetes Risk?
Right now, you can go on the ADA website and take a short test to assess your risk of type 2 diabetes. One of the questions is: “Are you physically active?”

At this year’s conference, Dhairya Upadhyay of New York University said that simple yes-or-no questions like this don’t provide enough information to really assess a person’s risk. Experts assessed health data from nearly 13,000 people who had previously worn smartwatches for a year and then agreed to share their health records for nine years. Every additional hour of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (like brisk walking and biking) reduced the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes by 6%, and every additional 1,000 steps decreased the risk by 9%.

💡 Why it matters: Tracking your physical activity with devices like smartphones and smartwatches may provide a more accurate picture of how much exercise you are getting, and in turn, help reduce the risk of health issues down the road.

New Resource Provides Diabetes Education in American Sign Language 
A new free online resource for diabetes self-management education, delivered in American Sign Language (ASL), was recently launched as a collaboration between Dr. Michelle Litchman’s research team at the University of Utah and a community advisory board of individuals who live with diabetes and are also deaf or hard of hearing (DHH).

Litchman recently presented the new resource, DeafDiabetesCan.org, explaining that for the DHH community, healthcare professionals need to know that handouts don’t always work – you have to give people information in their primary language. The new online tool includes both written English instructions and videos where people fluent in ASL explain a number of diabetes topics, ranging from food guidance to glucose checks.

The resource currently has a dictionary with 42 diabetes-related signs, 20 educational videos on diabetes topics that adhere to current ADA guidelines, and 18 peer-generated videos that focus on advice from people living with diabetes who are also DHH. Each video contains closed captions and an English voiceover as well to meet the various needs of individuals. In interviews with people who were asked to review the website, participants highlighted that it was intuitive, easy to use, accessible, and understandable.

💡Why It matters: Until now, there have been no diabetes self-management resources in ASL available for the DHH community, who often face communication barriers in their diabetes care. For example, research shows that around 50% of the time, people do not have an ASL interpreter in their healthcare appointments. Not only that, but many people who are DHH may not be bilingual. Just because someone speaks ASL doesn’t necessarily mean they can also read or understand written English at the same level. DeafDiabetesCan.org is an important resource that was co-created with the community and helps fill this diabetes education gap for people who are DHH and live with diabetes.

Preserving Beta Cell Function Remains Important as Diabetes Tech Advances
Diabetes technology has improved considerably in recent years. People who switch to automated insulin delivery (AID) systems often achieve remarkable drops in their blood sugar. Still, wearables, at least those that exist today, cannot fully replace a healthy pancreas.

At the ADA conference, Anna Lam from the University of Alberta shared her analysis of data from two studies initially designed to test the effects of AID systems on beta cell preservation in 206 people with new-onset type 1 diabetes. Lam looked at these datasets with a slightly different question in mind: How does the amount of surviving beta cells (as indicated by C-peptide levels, which give a picture of how much insulin the body is producing) affect the blood sugar benefits of AID systems?

Lam’s analysis revealed that AID systems produced the greatest improvements in blood sugar management for the people with the lowest C-peptide levels. For people with higher C-peptide levels, AID systems did not offer as much improvement over multiple daily injections. Furthermore, people with higher C-peptide levels appeared to have a somewhat lower risk of hypoglycemia.

💡 Why it matters: AID systems help people with very little or no beta cell activity manage their blood sugar better, but trying to preserve beta cell activity in the early stages of type 1 diabetes is still a worthwhile goal. Right now, people who have been diagnosed at an early stage may be able to take Tzield (teplizumab), which delays the onset of symptoms and appears to help some residual beta cells survive.

U.S. and European Organizations Updating Diabetes Care Recommendations
Advances in technology and medications have revolutionized type 2 diabetes management, but healthcare providers need clear guidelines about what is available and how it should be used to give people with diabetes state-of-the-art care.

To that end, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) are finalizing an update of their guidelines for type 2 diabetes care. The new version shifts focus on treating type 2 diabetes from simply lowering blood sugar to managing all related conditions and complications, including other metabolic health issues, as well as heart, kidney, and liver disease.

The new document will emphasize the importance of diet and activity as well as medication. It calls for people with diabetes to make a daily goal of hitting the 5S’s (Standing, Stepping, Sweating, Strengthening, and Sleeping). This will encourage people to avoid prolonged sitting, mix in high-intensity exercise and resistance training, and get adequate rest.

As far as diabetes medications, the document will recommend individualized treatment plans that account for other conditions and place the person with diabetes at the center of the decision-making process. It will also emphasize the importance of starting treatments early, with one statement highlighting that many people would benefit from taking SGLT-2 inhibitors like Jardiance, GLP-1 drugs, or a combination of the two as soon as they are diagnosed.

💡 Why it matters: Ultimately, healthcare providers rely on information from medical organizations like the ADA and EASD to inform their treatment recommendations. An updated document that stresses the importance of treating diabetes and its complications early and using medication and lifestyle modifications in combination should lead to better care for all people with diabetes.

Proposed Healthcare Cuts Threaten Progress for Diabetes Care
The Trump administration has proposed steep cuts of $5.78 billion to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for 2027, which could make it difficult for researchers and scientists to get funding, start new projects, and conduct long-term research to advance the field of diabetes care.

A recently published editorial highlighted these issues, expressing deep concern about how government cuts to biomedical research and dramatic reductions in NIH staff could dismantle the ability of the NIH to function effectively and slow the progression in finding new treatments and innovations for chronic conditions like diabetes. The 2027 proposal would also eliminate three major government organizations, including the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, which could severely impact the ability to address health inequities in underserved communities. Considering that, for example, roughly twice as many Black adults are likely to develop type 2 diabetes and have significantly higher rates of complications, eliminating such a program would further increase the gap for much-needed care in these communities.

Several prominent scientists were passing out the editorial before the opening session of the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) 2026 Scientific Sessions – where NIH director Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya was supposed to give the keynote speech but pulled out last minute – and were removed from the conference by police and had their ADA badges taken away. It was reported that the scientists allegedly violated the ADA code of conduct rules; the scientists argue they were trying to peacefully hand out copies of the editorial to help spread awareness about the impacts these cuts would have on diabetes research and health outcomes.

💡 Why it matters: The proposed 2027 changes could dramatically impact progress for every chronic condition, including diabetes. In the past, NIH-supported research has led to life-changing treatments and care for people with type 1 and 2 diabetes, including the development of Tzield – the first ever treatment to delay the onset of type 1 diabetes. It is important to protect healthcare research and its funding. Experts urge any concerned U.S. citizen or organization to contact their local elected official and patient advocacy organizations.

 

From www.diatribe.com

 

__________________________

 

Nyhetsinfo

www red DiabetologNytt