Conflicts of interest on CDC vaccine panel were at historic lows before RFK Jr. dismissal

(Press-News.org) When health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently fired an entire federal vaccine advisory panel, he described the unprecedented move as necessary to rid the committee of industry influence.

However, new research from the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics finds that reported conflicts on that Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel had been at historic lows for years before Kennedy’s abrupt dismissal. Furthermore, the type of conflict typically considered the most concerning—income from vaccine makers—had been virtually eliminated among members of the CDC panel, known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Rates were also low on a vaccine advisory panel at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC). The FDA committee advises the agency on whether to approve vaccines, while the CDC committee provides advice on exactly who should take the vaccine and when.

“In the past, there have been high levels of reported conflicts on influential vaccine committees, but there has been substantial progress since the early 2000s. Although it’s important to remain vigilant, conflicts of interest on vaccine advisory committees have been at historically low levels for quite some time,” said lead author Genevieve Kanter, a senior scholar at the Schaeffer Center and associate professor at the USC Price School of Public Policy who studies conflicts of interest at federal agencies.

The study, published Aug.18 in JAMA, comes as Senate Democrats investigate Kennedy’s decision to fire ACIP members and replace them with handpicked advisors, including some who have been critical of vaccines. Meanwhile, Kennedy has continued to overhaul federal advisory panels he claims are too heavily influenced by industry.

Reported conflicts fell amid heightened scrutiny of industry ties

The researchers examined reported financial conflicts of interest among experts on the two federal vaccine advisory committees between 2000 and 2024.

ACIP and VRBPAC each typically meet several times per year to review vaccines. For each product under discussion, committee members are supposed to declare a conflict of interest if they have a tie to the vaccine maker or a competitor and to disclose the nature of the relationship. Members with conflicts may receive a waiver to participate if they are deemed to provide “essential expertise.” If their conflicts are deemed too substantial, they are recused from participating.

Reported conflicts of interest among members were notably high in the early 2000s, with annual rates peaking at 43% for ACIP and 27% for VRBPAC during that decade. But rates of reported conflicts have since dropped significantly and remained low, likely due to heightened public scrutiny of industry influence in health agencies’ decision-making. The FDA also took steps to curb conflicts of interest on its advisory committees.

Since 2016, an average of 6.2% of ACIP members and 1.9% of VRBAC members have reported a financial conflict of interest at any given meeting. During that time, less than 1% of reported conflicts on both committees were related to personal income from vaccine makers, which includes consulting fees, stock, royalties or ownership.

The most frequently reported conflict was related to research grants—a reflection of the committee members’ areas of expertise relevant to evaluating the safety, effectiveness and applicability of vaccines. Research support is generally considered less concerning than financial ties associated with personal income.

“Secretary Kennedy is right that conflict of interest is an important issue, but he is wrong that it is present at substantial levels on HHS vaccine advisory committees,” said co-author Peter Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former FDA associate commissioner.

For ACIP, Kanter said, the data the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services made available was less granular, and committee members may have reported financial ties that were not technically considered a conflict of interest—for example, industry support for general research on insurance coverage of vaccines. For this reason, the ACIP rates reported in the analysis may have overstated what the government considers a conflict of interest. In addition, CDC rates may be higher because ACIP is more likely than VRBPAC to review multiple products at a single meeting.

“Although financial conflicts of interest and industry influence are certainly concerning in some domains of government decision-making, it’s not obvious that vaccine advisory committees are one of those areas,” Kanter said.

About the Study

Toni Mankowitz of the USC Schaeffer Center is also a co-author. Kanter reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures for unrelated research about FDA advisory committees. Lurie reported having served as FDA associate commissioner from January 2014 to August 2017 and receiving funding from Arnold Ventures for unrelated work. Lurie’s work on this project was funded by the Harvey Motulsky and Lisa Norton-Motulsky Fund.

END