Professional Societies Must Address Gaps When Politics Overrides Evidence
In an early release of his letter for the Summer issue, Editor-in-Chief Jason Gallagher, PharmD, FCCP, FIDP, FIDSA, BCPS, discusses the recent changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and where professional societies must step in and lead with research data and clinical guidance in the absence of experienced committee members.
Image credit: CDC
With the ongoing current events related to vaccine policy, we decided to post this early release of the Summer issue's Editor-in-Chief letter.
“May you live in interesting times,” often cited incorrectly as a Chinese curse, is an idiom that has felt particularly apt of late. Our field faces new and significant challenges: grant cancellations, reduced support for infectious disease prevention and treatment, and the appointment of individuals without relevant expertise to key federal roles. A recent and chilling example—the unprecedented removal of all sitting members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—sets the stage for potentially disastrous consequences.1
The ACIP has been a foundation of vaccine practices in the US for more than 60 years, with the initial appointments occurring in 1964. It replaced the ad hoc committees that were previously used to help shape policy about national immunization practices. As the work of ACIP grew, its structure and reporting structure both changed. In 1972, it became a federal advisory committee, ensuring that its meetings and records were all available to the public as well as transparency in its processes.2
Potential conflicts of interest are also screened, monitored, and mitigated among ACIP members. Any recusal due to a potential conflict of interest (COI) that arises, such as research performed on a vaccine under consideration, is addressed and published publicly in meeting minutes, and agendas contain COI disclosures.3 In short, ACIP is a transparent, scientifically grounded body that cannot credibly be dismissed as compromised by industry influence.
In June 2025, the secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services ended the terms of all the then-current members of ACIP and replaced them with new appointees. Although the stated goal was to restore “public trust in vaccines,” some of the new members have shown distrust about immunization.4 The announcement also indicated that the committee would not only provide prospective recommendations but also reexamine current schedule safety and efficacy data.4 This development implies that long-standing, evidence-based guidance could be revisited without clear scientific justification.
Simply put, the validity of our vaccine policy is under threat. Vaccines represent one of the most impactful public health achievements, preventing countless illnesses and deaths. We have already witnessed reemergence of fatal vaccine-preventable diseases—such as recent measles outbreaks—when coverage falters.1 If ACIP’s process shifts away from established evidence, continuity and confidence in immunization policy may suffer, with downstream effects on health outcomes.
In such a scenario, professional societies in infectious diseases, obstetrics, pediatrics, pharmacy, and family medicine should prepare to fill any void. These organizations have experience with guideline development and have historically liaised with ACIP. Although society-generated recommendations would lack ACIP’s formal regulatory authority (eg, provisions that ensure insurance coverage for pediatric vaccines), they can still guide clinicians, insurers, and health systems toward evidence-based practices. Insurers, concerned about costs associated with preventable illness, are likely to follow logical, evidence-driven guidelines even when not mandated by federal policy.
If government policy departs from established science in infectious disease prevention and control, professional societies must lead. By proactively developing, disseminating, and updating independent, evidence-based immunization guidance, these societies can help safeguard public health. In these interesting times, when science is sidelined, professional societies must rise—not only to inform, but to lead.
