New Research: ACIP Members’ Conflicts of Interest at Historic Low Before Dismissals

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary cited conflicts of interest as the primary reason for dismissing all 17 members of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in June.

But there’s a significant issue with that claim: According to new research, it can’t be true.

An analysis recently published in JAMA reviewed the conflicts of interest of ACIP members from 2000 to 2024. The review, conducted by the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, also examined the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBAC).

The authors found the rate of reported conflicts had actually “declined for ACIP and VRBAC over the last 25 years and were at historically low levels through 2024." In fact, reported instances of income from vaccine makers – the type of conflict considered most concerning – had fallen to less than 1%. Most reported conflicts stemmed from research grant support, reflecting the members’ expertise and professional experience.

ACIP’s independent vetting process played a significant role in fostering objectivity.

Before HHS removed the entire ACIP membership and announced eight replacements days later, the process for ACIP voting member additions took at least one year, and often longer. It required potential members to first serve on ACIP working groups, be nominated by peers or apply for voting membership, and submit a formal application with letters of recommendation. Even the most qualified professionals often apply multiple times before earning a spot because the process was so competitive and selective.

The extensive vetting process also evaluated real or perceived conflicts of interest. ACIP members could not actively consult for, receive grants from, or hold any financial associations with pharmaceutical companies. They could not have ties to any of the products under discussion, and were required to disclose any past relationships, such as participating as an expert in a clinical trial.

The new ACIP membership – appointed just eight days after the dismissals – did not undergo a lengthy evaluation, undermining trustworthiness at a time when health care providers, insurance plans, and millions of Americans across every age demographic rely on ACIP’s recommendations. In the more than two months since ACIP’s overhaul, there have been no credible reports of a single conflict of interest justifying any former member’s dismissal. In contrast, many have raised concerns about the seven new members appointed to ACIP, including anti-vaccine sentiments and a lack of transparency in the selections.

To fulfil its role as an independent guide on immunization practices, ACIP must be synonymous with objective decision-making based on the latest and most accurate information. If that standard is not reflected in the committee’s makeup, the entire apparatus is compromised.

Trust builds over time.

It can be lost with one action — or in this case, 17.

ACIP’s next meeting is scheduled for September. When the group reconvenes, a recommitment to following scientific data, regardless of where evidence leads, can be the first step for a historically prestigious institution to recapture its core principles and deliver on the responsibility Americans and their families deserve.

CILCK HERE to read an open letter from 40 former ACIP members and CDC and HHS officials expressing grave concerns about the overhaul and calling for transparency and accountability in ACIP membership.