Science Friday - RFK Jr. Reshuffles CDC Vaccine Panel With Vaccine Skeptics

Episode Date: June 13, 2025

On Monday, US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired all 17 members of the panel that advises the CDC on who should get certain vaccines and when. Then on Thursday, he appointed eight new members, some of whom have been critical of vaccines in the past. So who exactly is new on the panel and how are medical experts reacting?Sophie Bushwick from New Scientist breaks down this reshuffling and the other top science stories of the week, including Starlink’s leaky satellites, Earth’s possible past encounters with dark matter, IBM’s quantum computing plans, a device that can extract water from dry air, and how a paralyzed man was able to speak thanks to brain-controlled synthetic voice.Plus, nearly one in four Americans live within three miles of a Superfund site, places that are contaminated with hazardous waste and flagged for cleanup by the government. Amid sweeping cuts to science and environmental programs, the Trump administration appears to be prioritizing the cleanup of these polluted sites. But why? Host Flora Lichtman talks with science journalist Shahla Farzan about the Trump administration’s approach to cleaning up Superfund sites and what this means for impacted communities.Read Farzan’s full story about the move to expedite cleanup, and her past coverage of how floods can impact the areas surrounding Superfund sites.Transcripts for each episode are available within 1-3 days at sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato. Earlier this week, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., fired all 17 members of the panel that advises the CDC on who should get certain vaccines. And yesterday, he appointed eight new members. So who's new on the panel and how are the medical experts reacting? Here to tell us more about this and other top science stories of the week is Sophie Bushwick, senior news editor at New Scientist in New York. York. Welcome back, Sophie. Thanks, Ira. Good to talk to you. All right, so tell me a bit more about how this panel operated and what happened. Right. So this panel, it's called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and they really advise on things like the childhood vaccine schedule, on whether a new vaccine should be recommended for everybody or for just certain groups or that kind of thing. They look at, you know, the research that's been published and the studies that have been done with them, and they determine recommendations for how the public should view those vaccines for whether those should be recommended or not, that kind of thing. And so it's very influential

for things like determining if an insurance company is going to cover certain vaccines or if the people who want them are going to have to pay out of pocket. It's set this guidance that also professional medical organizations then follow in terms of when they're advising the, you know, doctors who are members of those groups. So this is a very important panel. It's traditionally been staffed with experts in vaccines. So researchers who study this field in particular, and all 17 members were fired. And yesterday, RFK Jr. appointed eight new members. Can you give us an idea of who they are? So so far the eight members, we don't know if he's going to add more to get back up to 17, but it's not great news for people who are worried about this. So for instance,

one of the new appointees is a board member of an organization that's known to spread misinformation about vaccines. Another one is kind of a conservative darling who appeared on a lot of podcasts and conservative news outlets spreading conspiracy theories during the COVID-19 pandemic. So it's a mixed group, but it does confirm what some people were worried about, this idea that it indicates there's going to be more opposition to vaccines. to sort of known practices that have been followed thus far on vaccination. And I imagine the medical community has not reacted positively toward this. No, the American Medical Association actually called for RFK Jr. to be investigated by the Senate. The pediatric organizations are opposed to this move. Former CDC directors have spoken up against this.

There's definitely been a negative view of this decision in the medical community. Could one of these organizations replace the role that this panel played? It's possible that, you know, you might still be able to trust advice from a professional pediatric organization. The American Academy of Pediatrics is known to have very good advice. But the thing is that this kind of panel, as part of the government, being able to trust that the government is going to abide by the best known public health practices is something that we've taken for granted for years, that these organizations are going to issue the advice that's the most science-backed, that is the consensus for medical professionals. And now the information

that is going to be coming out of this panel, it so is doubt, you know, that maybe we can't trust what's coming out of this panel. And that's a big problem for public health, the lack of trust in these institutions that are supposed to be protecting us. All right. Let's turn to something that may be another problem to another group of people. And I'm talking about Starlink, those thousands of satellites put into orbit by SpaceX, because astronomers have said in the past that these satellites interfere with how they image the sky and now radio astronomers are raising issues. That's right. So radio astronomy is the kind of astronomy where they're still looking at the skies, but instead of looking for light that's in the visible range, they're looking at,

at wavelengths of light that are in the radio spectrum. And some telescopes are, for instance, they're looking at signals from gas that existed in the very, very early universe. So by the time this signal gets to the radio telescopes here on Earth, it's kind of faint. You need a very sensitive instrument to be able to detect it. And the problem is this new study found that some of the starlink satellites are actually emitting radio waves in this spectrum that the radio telescope. scopes are looking for. And because they're so much closer to Earth, it's creating a strong

enough signal that it could be drowning out some of these fainter signals from further away. My goodness. I mean, is there any way to fix this problem? Could you just tune them to a different frequency? Well, right now we think that this is accidental leakage. It's not that the, the, the satellites are sending out these signals deliberately. It's just kind of leaking from the antenna. So maybe there's some sort of fix that SpaceX could look into. And we know that in the past, SpaceX has been sensitive to astronomers' concerns. So, for example, they've tried to make their Starlink satellites less reflective, so they wouldn't interfere as much with astronomers who are using visible light signals. And they've also done things like

turning off the satellites when they are flying over major telescopes. So it's possible that that could be a solution. Another option might be that the researchers themselves could develop algorithms that would sort of filter out this leaking radio signal from the Starlink satellites, But of course, that would make their job a lot harder. Yeah, yeah. Okay, let's move to another space story. And this is one that I, it's in my wheelhouse because I always follow dark energy, dark matter and stuff. And scientists think we've had closer brushes with dark matter than they previously thought?

Yes. So we've got to take this with a big grain of salt because if we, if this is true, this would be our first time actually detecting a dark matter particle, which is like a big claim. So we would definitely want to get more evidence of this. But what happened is a little while ago, a neutrino detector detected this really, really high energy particle. It was like 35 times more energetic than any other neutrino ever seen. And so now researchers at a different group are suggesting perhaps this wasn't a neutrino at all. It could have been a particle of dark matter that originated in a blazar. Blazar is a kind of really energetic black hole at the center of a galaxy pretty far away.

It would have to travel a great distance to get to Earth. Right. Now, Sophie, have heard this from a galaxy far, far away somewhere else that I... In a galaxy far... Honestly, I think those films would be so much more interesting if they also included dark matter. There you go. I think it's high concept, as they say in Hollywood. But let's move on to something that's really, I guess, refreshing.

An ultra-simple fresh water-making device being tested in Death Valley. You can get water out of the air in Death Valley? It sounds wild, but that's exactly what they did. So it's very, very dry in Death Valley, not a lot of humidity. But researchers develop this device. It's sort of like a glass panel filled with a hydrogel. That's this really absorbent material. And the idea is that overnight, the hydrogill will absorb water.

And then during the day, the sun shines on the glass panel that makes the water evaporate. And then the evaporated water collects on the glass and drips down into storage. And they ran this device for about a week in Death Valley, and it managed to harvest roughly a small glass of water per day. Wow. That's pretty good. And it doesn't use any electricity, right? Right. It's totally passive, no power required.

And they estimate that if you had eight of those panels next to each other, you could supply an average adult's daily drinking water needs. So this is one of those things that has to be tested out to see if it really works. Absolutely. You'd want to see, you know, running it for a week is great as a practical example. And the fact that it worked in the real world and not in laboratory conditions is also really promising. But, you know, how well is this going to work after months of use or years of use? is it going to require constant replacements, you know, what sort of adjustments might have to be made for wear and tear? That's the kind of thing that's going to require more testing.

Right. Okay. Let's move on to our last story. Another fact, you brought one of these fascinating stories today, Sophie. A man who lost the ability to speak has regained it thanks to, I'm reading this, a mind-reading AI. Yes. So what's happened here is he's got this device called a brain computer interface to detect his neural activity. And what the AI is doing is sort of acting like a translator, translating his brain activity into speech.

And so in order to have this work, researchers put electrodes on his brain. And they've recorded the brain activity that's responsible for moving your facial muscles, the facial muscles you use to speak. And then they recorded his brain activity while he imagined or tried to say specific sentences. And the interesting thing is he also said sentences with different emphasis. So, you know, how are you doing today versus how are you doing today? That means different things. And what they did is had him do that kind of change in emphasis. And they trained the AI to detect that.

And then what they were able to do once it had been trained was once he used those parts of his brain to try to assemble a sentence in a certain way with a certain intonation, the AI is able to translate that into speech. And they actually cloned his voice as well. so they had recordings of him speaking before he lost that ability, and they used that so that the AI is now making it sound as if his original voice is making this speech. I mean, could this be scaled up? Yes, I think it would still require training on each individual,

but I think the idea is that this could be applied to more people, because this is not actually the first time that brain computer interface has been used to restore speech, but a lot of these systems have a lag. It just takes a little bit for the signals from the brain to be translated into speech. And that makes a real conversation difficult. So the really big breakthrough here is that it's a very, very fast process. It's a lag of 25 milliseconds, which enables relatively natural sounding conversation. I can absolutely see this being a game changer for someone who's not able to speak.

Like, you know, think about listening to Stephen Hawking using a synthetic voice. Right. You know, for many, many years. And that kind of thing, the technology has progressed so far that much more natural-sounding speech through technology is possible. Very good point to end with. You're always bringing us, as I say, great stuff, Sophie. Thanks for taking time to be with us today. Thanks, Ira.

It's my pleasure. Have a good weekend. Sophie Bushwick, senior news editor for new scientists. Coming up after the break, the EPA wants to accelerate the cleanup of toxic waste sites. Just how will that work? People are really impatient here. I mean, they've been waiting 35 years for this radioactive waste to get cleaned up. Stay with us.

Hey, Flora here. We're wrapping up Science Friday's fiscal year on June 30th, and we could use your support. I know I don't need to tell you. It is a tenuous time for science and for public media, and we are relying on donations from our listeners more than ever. We're aiming to raise $40,000 to close out our budget, and with your help, I know we can do it. So if Science Friday is valuable to you, if you rely on our reporting to make sense of the world or just give you a little joy, please consider going to Science Friday.com slash donate to make a donation. It's fast, easy, secure, and any amount you can swing will help sustain us in this critical moment.

Thank you. We have said it before, and we really mean it. Science Friday can only continue with your support. That's science friday.com slash donate. Thank you. Since January, the Trump administration has made sweeping cuts to science and research at federal agencies, slashing funding, laying off workers, and terminating grants. But amidst these cuts, the administration plans to prioritize an environmental program

that cleans up toxic waste at Superfund sites. Here to tell us more is Shayla Farzan. She's a science journalist and editor with American Public. media. Shaila, welcome back. Hey, Flora, great to be here. Okay, let's start with a refresher. What are Superfund sites? So Superfund sites are some of the most polluted places in the country. There's more than 1,300 of them all across the U.S. in all different kinds of places. So everywhere from old mines to industrial plants, even some Air Force bases, and lots of them are pretty close to residential areas. About 78 million people.

people in the U.S. live within three miles of a Superfund site. That's almost one in four Americans. Wow. Yeah. And I should also mention that there can be some really nasty stuff at these sites, like asbestos, lead, cyanide. And, you know, these are obviously things that can cause really serious health problems like cancer and birth defects. Why are they in the news now? Yeah, so the Superfund program's been around for a long time since 1980. But we're talking about it more now because the Trump administration is focusing on it. Trump's new head of the EPA, Lee Zeldon, told reporters in May that the agency wants to, and this is a direct quote, expedite every timeline possible when it comes to superfund cleanups. Where are we in the process of cleaning up superfund sites?

Lots of these sites are being cleaned up, but it can take a really long time. I mean, we're talking years, sometimes even decades, because this pollution can be fairly complicated to clean up, depending on what's there, how extensive the pollution is, you know, whether it's seeped into the groundwater, those kinds of things. And, I mean, as you can imagine, cleaning up these sites can be pretty expensive. The way the program's set up, whoever's responsible for the pollution is supposed to pay for it. So that's often businesses or individuals. And then overseeing all of this is the Environmental Protection Agency, which follows a pretty systematic cleanup process. Okay. So the head of the EPA wants to expedite the cleanup of these sites. But the administration also is aiming to cut the EPA's budget by more than half and lay off more than a thousand EPA employees.

How does this all work together? Yeah. So let me explain a little. Trump does want to cut the EPA's budget. But the Superfund program actually got a pretty large infusion of funding under the Biden administration. The bipartisan infrastructure law set aside $3.5 billion for Superfund and also reinstated certain taxes that help fund the program. So from a financial perspective, the program's doing fine right now. But you're right. I mean, the Trump administration has signaled that they're planning to lay off. EPA workers, especially workers who focus on research. So what do experts think? Do they think the EPA

will be able to follow through with this directive to clean up superfund sites faster? Yeah, great question. And actually, to dig into it, I want to take you to one of these toxic waste dumps. It's near where I live in St. Louis, and we actually reported on it last year. It's called the Westlake landfill. And it's been a super fun site since 1990. You know how I talked earlier about, you know, that really nasty stuff that's in some of these Superfund sites? Well, this one is full of radioactive waste. And it's about a mile and a half from the Missouri River in a spot that floods during big storms. That sounds like a terrible spot for radioactive waste.

Where did it come from? Yeah, it's actually left over from the Manhattan Project back when St. Louis was a hub for processing uranium in World War II. That uranium was actually used in some of the first atomic weapons tests. And then later in the 1970s, the waste from it, that radioactive waste, got dumped all across St. Louis. And some of it ended up in this residential landfill. So just to help you picture this, there's actually more than 600,000 cubic yards of material in this landfill that all has to be dug up and removed, including the radioactive waste. So that's actually enough to fill about 41,000 full-sized dump trucks. That sounds like a big job.

Yeah, absolutely. It's a ton of material to remove. Okay, so how does this come back to this plan to expedite cleanup of superfund sites? Well, the head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, came to St. Louis back in March, and he visited the Westlake landfill. So while he was here, he met with residents and officials and heard from people who say they've gotten sick from the radioactive waste. Here's what he said during his visit. Somebody who doesn't live here in this community, and I'm here for the first time hearing

these stories from the people who lived here, to hear this multi-generationalally where people are talking about their grandkids. This is something that should have been addressed a very long time ago. So originally, cleanup was supposed to start in 2029. But then when Zelda visited St. Louis, he asked, EPA staffers to put together what he called the most ambitious timeline possible for this project, which they did. And they came out with this new timeline that bumps the start date up to 2027. So essentially they shaved two years off of how long this was supposed to take.

Is Zelda on a sort of tour of the country going to Superfund site to Superfund site? Or is this the only spotty hit? Do you know? Yeah. So he's actually on a national tour right now. He's made a couple of other stops, and this was one of the places that he's focusing on. And how are people in St. Louis feeling about this? Yeah, people are really impatient here. I mean, they've been waiting 35 years for this radioactive waste to get cleaned up. I talked with a local activist named Karen Nicol about this. She's one of the people who's been organizing this community and also trying to hold EPA

accountable. And she said she's feeling hopeful since Zeldon's visit. I think that that was one of the most important things he did when he came in is he kind of put the hammer down. And what we saw in that meeting, it was pretty powerful and impactful. So Karen told me that she went through this plan step by step just to make sure EPA wasn't cutting corners. And she said that she's confident that the plan's realistic and also that it's not sacrificing safety. You know, the question in my mind is I'm hearing you tell this story. is why is the Trump administration focusing on toxic waste cleanup?

I mean, it's notable because we've seen the administration cut so much other science and environmental programs. Yeah, I actually asked Nicole Weinstein that exact same question. She's an environmental lawyer who specializes in Superfund litigation. Here's how she put it. The Trump administration is likely prioritizing Superfund over other environmental programs because cleaning up contaminated sites provides photo op ready wins. So basically what she's saying is that cleaning up these sites is really visible. It's easy for people to understand, especially compared to other kinds of, you know, more complicated, abstract regulations, things like emission standards.

And Nicole said another important piece of this is that the Superfund program is more focused on past actions. So essentially cleaning up waste that's already there. not imposing new regulations on industries, which can be more controversial and politically risky. But, you know, if we zoom out a little bit, it's really interesting to think about how all of this fits together with how the administration is approaching scientific research more broadly. Because remember how we talked earlier about that plan to slash the overall EPA budget by half? Well, when Zeldon was in St. Louis, he said that those cuts are part of a much larger strategy to pivot, away from research so that they can focus on cleaning up toxic waste. There are billions of dollars that we've now been able to free up.

My goal is that if a dollar is spent, that the dollar is spent on directly remediating the environmental issue. I do not want to see a dollar spent to some group to tell us that we have an issue that needs to get dealt with. Okay, so Zeldon is making the argument that why would you spend money on research when you could actually just be spending money to clean it up? I mean, is there value to this research? I mean, essentially, cleaning up this pollution can be really complicated. And it takes a lot of research and planning. Like, you can't just kind of send in a backhoe to dig it up on the spot.

You need to plan for it. So I talked with a number of different environmental lawyers about this. And they told me that research is basically interwoven into every step of the Superfund cleanup process. And that's partly because every one of these sites is a little bit different in terms of its, you know, geology. topography, the mix of chemicals and pollutants that are there. And then the other part of it is that EPA is really gathering a lot of information on the pollutants that are there to figure out how to clean them up safely and also in a cost-effective way. So they can actually get the people who are responsible for this pollution to pay for it. Can I ask, is there something to the idea that the EPA has moved too slowly on these cleanups?

So these cleanups can be really slow. I talked with Ben Gibson about that. He's an environmental lawyer who specializes in Superfund, and he said the EPA can and should be moving faster. EPA's role in the Superfund program is absolutely essential. But the unfortunate part is that there also tends to be a culture within EPA of being overly cautious, which leads to long periods of review and just general indecision. And Ben said that sometimes this means that, you know, this pollution sticks around in communities for a lot longer than it should. And lots of places in the U.S. have been waiting a really long time for these cleanups to happen, sometimes decades, like St. Louis. People who live near the radioactive landfill here are at this point where they're, you know, just trying to stay optimistic and hopeful.

But it's really hard sometimes. Here's how Karen Nicoll, the activist in St. Louis, put it. The fact of the matter is is that this is inside of us and this is with us for the rest of our lives. We don't get to just wipe away the devastation that we have seen in our community with these illnesses because they're going to continue worrying about our own children and our own grandchildren and their children. It is going to be a lifelong battle. So this cleanup has taken a really long time, but people here in St. Louis aren't giving up. They're going to keep fighting and trying to hold the EPA accountable until all this radioactive waste gets removed.

Shaila, thanks for bringing us this story. Thanks so much for having me. That was science journalist and editor Shaila Farzan. To read more of Shaila's reporting, head to ScienceFriday.com slash Superfund. Special thanks to St. Louis Public Radio's Jason Rosenbaum for his production help. That's about all the time. we have for now, a lot of people help make this show happen. John Denkoski. Robin Kasmar. Charles Bergquist.

George Harper. I'm Ira Flato. Thanks for listening.