New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

CDC Vaccine Panel in Disarray over Hepatitis B Vote

Members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices seemed confused about a proposed recommendation for the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine

A man speaking into a microphone at a vaccine panel

Robert Malone, a committee member and vice chair of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, during a meeting of the committee on December 4, 2025. The influential panel of U.S. vaccine advisers is expected to reverse a long-standing recommendation that babies receive a hepatitis B shot hours after birth, a change public health experts say is all but certain to endanger children.

Megan Varner/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

An influential vaccine panel that was due to vote on whether to change recommendations for hepatitis B vaccines for infants has postponed its vote after the day’s deliberations fell into confusion and disarray on Thursday.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was scheduled to rule on recommendations for the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns, but several panel members seemed confused as to what they were voting on. The ballot is now set to take place on Friday.

“There was, again, general disarray and confusion and a clear lack of expertise from both the presenters and the ACIP members,” says Helen Chu, an immunologist and physician at the University of Washington. ACIP initially discussed hepatitis B vaccines at a September meeting, but the members tabled the vote on whether to change the recommendations.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Under current recommendations, all babies receive the first of three doses of the hepatitis B vaccine hours after they are born. The policy, instituted in 1991, has dramatically reduced childhood cases of the disease in the U.S.

ACIP appears to be considering three possible votes, including to make the birth dose optional for infants born to pregnant people who tested negative for the hepatitis B virus. That proposal, whereby parents would be required to discuss vaccination for newborns with a health care provider, prompted significant confusion among members.

“I apologize that it’s taking me a while to thoroughly read this,” said ACIP member Joseph R. Hibbeln, a psychiatrist and neuroscientist, at the meeting, adding that he had had little notice to consider the proposals. “This is the third version of the questions that we at most of the ACIP have received in 72 hours.”

“I’m having a hard time, too,” said ACIP member Cody Meissner, a pediatric infectious disease epidemiologist.

The presentation of the voting information at Thursday’s meeting deviated from past ACIP meetings, says Chu, a former ACIP member, who was dismissed by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a noted vaccine skeptic, in June.

The language for votes is “usually decided well ahead of time in the working groups and is shared ahead of time, which allows for both public comment and for review by the ACIP members so that they can come prepared to vote,” she says.

During today’s meeting, “there have been multiple arguments between ACIP members. It’s frankly embarrassing,” says Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan. “At the last ACIP meeting, they were unable to develop [hepatitis B] recommendations they could vote on. It seems this problem had not been solved.”

Editor’s Note (12/4/25): This story was updated to include further clarification on the proposed votes.

Lauren J. Young is a science journalist and multimedia producer based in New York City. She was formerly associate editor for health and medicine at Scientific American and has edited and written stories that tackle a wide range of subjects, including the COVID pandemic, emerging diseases, evolutionary biology and health inequities. Young has nearly a decade of newsroom and science journalism experience. Before joining Scientific American in 2023, she was an associate editor at Popular Science and a digital producer at public radio’s Science Friday. She has appeared as a guest on radio shows, podcasts and stage events. Young has also spoken on panels for the Asian American Journalists Association, American Library Association, NOVA Science Studio and the New York Botanical Garden. Her work has appeared in Scholastic MATH, School Library Journal, IEEE Spectrum, Atlas Obscura and Smithsonian Magazine. Young studied biology at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, before pursuing a master’s at New York University’s Science, Health & Environmental Reporting Program.

More by Lauren J. Young

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe