The federal government’s main advisory panel on vaccine policy looks to be getting a makeover, which has some infectious diseases experts and vaccine advocates concerned.

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has updated and changed the charter for the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) — which was established in 1986 — and is now seeking new members who will closely align with the panel’s new mission.

“I’m a bit concerned,” said Robert Hopkins, MD, who was chair in the NVAC before HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr essentially disbanded the panel in early 2025.

Hopkins told Medscape Medical News that he’s worried about the selections for the NVAC membership because of how HHS appointed members to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). After removing all 17 of the ACIP members in June 2025, Kennedy selected members who primarily were interested in reducing the number of vaccines recommended or eliminating some vaccines from consideration.

There are also concerns about the direction of infectious diseases research — one of the NVAC’s primary responsibilities — said Hopkins, medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

Charter Changes Have Some Concerns

“We’ve certainly seen major cuts made in infectious diseases research,” he said. With increases in measles, pertussis, and some other communicable diseases, “we need to be thinking about what we can do to strengthen the entire pipeline,” Hopkins said.

In 2023, the NVAC charter called for the panel to advise on how “to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines.”

The new charter has the same mission but prescribes how to achieve those goals. The NVAC should consider “non-immunization strategies” for people who can’t be vaccinated or who have “strongly held personal, conscientious, or religious beliefs.” The strategies should include “healthy lifestyle and disease prevention initiatives, off label repurposed use of existing FDA approved drugs, and the use of dietary supplements known to support healthy immune function.”

NVAC subcommittees can investigate “the ethics of informed consent,” along with “opportunities to boost natural immunity through healthy lifestyle” and ways to prevent adverse events through “personalized vaccinology approaches.”

The changes to the charter expand the panel’s scope, said Hopkins. And “the evidence may not be, shall we say, as clear,” for preventive approaches like diet or supplements, he said.

The Adult Vaccine Access Coalition (AVAC), a Washington DC-based group that includes physician organizations, state and local health officials, and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, said it also was concerned about the expansion of the panel’s purview.

In a statement, Santiago Gonzalez, manager at the AVAC, urged the HHS “to preserve NVAC’s longstanding statutory focus on vaccines, immunization policy, and the prevention of infectious diseases through immunization,” adding that Congress established the panel “with a clear mission centered on vaccine safety and access.”

Prescribing Panel Makeup

Keeping the advisory panel’s mission intact will help strengthen confidence in vaccines and ensure that “healthcare professionals can continue to counsel patients based on the best available evidence,” said Gonzalez.

In the past, the panel’s 17 voting members would include 15 who were engaged in vaccine research or manufacture, who were physicians, members of parent organizations concerned with immunizations, or representatives of state or local health agencies or public health organizations. Two more voting members were designated to serve as official representatives of manufacturers.

The HHS announcement seeking new members said it was seeking a balance of individuals engaged in “gold standard science, vaccine safety or efficacy research, or who are physicians, scientists, members of parent organizations concerned with immunizations, or representatives of state or local health agencies or public health organizations.”

The charter was more explicit, stating that the membership should not consist of more than one third who are from the industry or are in academia and “receive funding from pharmaceutical companies or organizations that receive funding from pharmaceutical companies.” Academics also should not represent more than one third of the membership, and “be free of conflicts.”

Members who are from the public should constitute not less than one third of the panel, according to the charter.

Hopkins reported no relevant conflicts.

Alicia Ault is a Saint Petersburg, Florida-based freelance journalist whose work has appeared in many health and science publications, including Smithsonian.com. You can find her on X @aliciaault and on Bluesky @aliciaault.bsky.social.