Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s June 9 announcement that he had dismissed all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has been met with near-universal condemnation from top infectious disease (ID) experts and societies. His naming of a new slate of eight members has triggered similar consternation.
Count at least one ID pharmacist among the critics of the ACIP purge. “This is devastating. The members of ACIP are a group of the country’s smartest people who have dedicated their careers to studying vaccines and figuring out the best ways to use them,” said Elizabeth Dodds Ashley, PharmD, a professor in medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases and International Health at Duke University, in Durham, N.C. “There is such respect for all of these individuals. We all follow their meetings closely and greatly value what those scientists have to say. They should not be silenced.”
The decision could not have come at a worse time, Dr. Dodds Ashley told Pharmacy Practice News. “Summer is when we plan so we can implement our large respiratory virus vaccination campaign in the fall, and our teams are already stretched with other vaccine-preventable diseases on the rise, like measles. Time is such a precious resource in healthcare, and now every hospital is having to redo or create a measles plan. We shouldn’t have to be talking about measles in 2025. There’s no question that this is going to hurt people.”
In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece announcing the decision, Mr. Kennedy claimed the move was designed to restore public trust. “The public must know that unbiased science—evaluated through a transparent process and insulated from conflicts of interest—guides the recommendations of our health agencies,” he wrote. “A clean sweep is needed to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science.”
Paul Offit, MD, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, challenged those claims of bias. In past instances when a committee member had ties to a vaccine manufacturer, that person would have to declare the relationship and, therefore, be unable to vote on any product made by that company, he noted.
“That’s the way it works,” Dr. Offit stressed. “[ACIP is] very careful about [guarding against conflicts of interest]. And if you watch those meetings, you would know that the pharmaceutical industry pretty much has no influence over these external independent advisors.”
Mr. Kennedy takes a different view. He has claimed, for example, that “97% of the people” on the ACIP panel have conflicts of interest. That claim, however, is based on a 2009 audit of ethics paperwork involving all of the CDC’s advisory committees at the time (17 including ACIP). That report did not, in fact, find serious conflicts. Instead, the 97% figure referred to errors or omissions in disclosure forms, such as information being entered in the wrong section of the form, or reviewers failing to initial and date amendments.
And while a 2025 investigation by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (bit.ly/4jHQMEl) did find some payments from industry to ACIP members, “the consulting, honoraria, speaking, travel and ‘in-kind’ research payments that eight members received from drugmakers averaged just over $4,000 a year, nearly $3,000 less than the average for all U.S. specialist physicians,” the investigators noted. “For all but one member, these payments came before their terms started last year.”
Moreover, ACIP’s conflict-of-interest policy requires that members file financial disclosures annually, divest from any personal or family investments in vaccine manufacturer stock, and remove themselves from vaccine company scientific advisory boards and consulting roles with vaccine companies, among other safeguards. And as a final check, although ACIP members are permitted to participate in industry-funded vaccine clinical trials and can serve on data safety monitoring boards, they must disclose that involvement at ACIP public meetings and are required to remove themselves from any discussion and votes on those vaccines or any potential competitor.
Pushing Back on New ACIP Members
In a June 23 post on X, Sen. Bill Cassidy, MD (R-La.), who cast one of the deciding votes for R.F.K. Jr.’s confirmation to head HHS, questioned the bona fides of the new ACIP appointees (box). Although “they have scientific credentials, many do not have significant experience studying microbiology, epidemiology or immunology,” he wrote. “In particular, some lack experience studying new technologies such as mRNA vaccines, and may even have a preconceived bias against them.”
Further ACIP meetings should therefore be delayed, Sen. Cassidy noted, “until the panel is fully staffed with more robust and balanced representation—as required by law—including those with more direct relevant expertise. Otherwise, ACIP’s recommendations could be viewed with skepticism, which will work against the success of this Administration’s efforts.”
William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tenn., echoed those concerns. “In the 61 years of its functioning, the ACIP has always had representatives of the public health community,” Dr. Schaffner, said. “none of these [new ACIP members, in contrast], are professional public health people that work in a local or city or state public health department.”
Dr. Schaffner added that only Dr. Meissner is an ID expert and a pediatrician, as well as a former member of the ACIP. “Perhaps he’ll provide a measure of balance and be able to speak to tradition and how the ACIP has functioned,” he told PPN.
Dr. Dodds Ashley shares these concerns, and expressed surprise at how rapidly new members of ACIP were named. “I’m astonished and skeptical that the necessary vetting required of ACIP panel members in the past could have happened in that short period of time,” she said. “ACIP used to be composed largely of infectious disease experts and virologists who study vaccines, but the new panel has only one infectious disease specialist, which is a glaring omission. We need to be sure that the appropriate expertise is at the table to make these decisions, and that is not the case among those who have been named to the group. They are going to make the decisions about vaccines our children will get, and vaccines that could prevent our parents from having bad outcomes from the flu, and I am not comfortable with that.”
Dr. Dodds-Ashley said she is hopeful that the Vaccine Integrity Project, an effort launched in April by the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) to guide non-governmental efforts to protect vaccine policy and utilization in the United States, could provide an expert voice (bit.ly/4elchtG). “We still need to look to the best scientists to guide these decisions, and I’m very encouraged that CIDRAP has taken this on.”
Michael Osterholm, MD, the director of CIDRAP, said the project “acknowledges the unfortunate reality that the system that we’ve relied on to make vaccine recommendations and to review safety and effectiveness data faces threats.” He added that “it is prudent to evaluate whether independent activities may be needed to ... continue to provide science-based information to the American public.”
Ousted Members Fight Back
At press time, the dismissed ACIP members penned a Viewpoint article in JAMA defending the committe’s integrity, stressing that its “transparent and ongoing surveillance of vaccines is one of the most stringent around the world, historically making [its] deliberations and decisions a beacon for immunization programs globally, while also serving as the foundation for recommendations harmonized with leading medical organizations in the U.S.” (Published online June 16, 2025. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.10776).
The ACIP authors also challenged claims that it needed to be dismantled due to a loss of public support. “For the past 18 years, the National Immunization Survey has shown that 99 of every 100 children in the U.S. have received at least some recommended vaccines by 2 years of age, consistent with acceptance of ACIP recommendations. This does not suggest the population is so distrustful that it warrants dismantling the process by which vaccines have been recommended.”
The ousted ACIP members are not a lone voice of criticism. Organizations that have protested the panel’s gutting include the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Medical Association, and The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.
The sources reported no relevant financial disclosures.
This article is from the July 2025 print issue.