US awards no-bid contract to Denmark scientists studying hepatitis B vaccine in African babies

The Trump administration has awarded a $1.6 million no-bid contract to Danish researchers to study hepatitis B vaccinations in African newborns, sparking serious ethical concerns among public health experts.

According to federal notices posted this week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) granted the funding to a team at the University of Southern Denmark that has been praised by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a known vaccine skeptic.

One of the research team’s leaders, Christine Stabell Benn, serves as a consultant for a Kennedy-appointed committee that recently voted to discontinue recommendations for hepatitis B vaccines for all U.S. newborns, despite longstanding medical consensus about their safety and efficacy.

The five-year study is set to begin in early 2025 in Guinea-Bissau, an impoverished West African nation where hepatitis B infection is prevalent. Researchers plan to conduct a randomized controlled trial involving 14,000 newborns, with some receiving the hepatitis B vaccine at birth and others intentionally not receiving it.

Medical evidence has consistently shown that the hepatitis B vaccine protects infants from developing liver disease and prevents early death. The virus can be transmitted from infected mothers to their babies during birth, and infants can also contract it from contact with other infected individuals.

Dr. Boghuma K. Titanji, an infectious diseases specialist at Emory University and native of Cameroon, called the study “unconscionable,” warning it could exacerbate existing vaccine hesitancy across Africa and beyond.

“There’s so much potential for this to be a harmful study,” Titanji said, drawing parallels to the infamous Tuskegee Study, in which U.S. health officials withheld syphilis treatment from Black men to observe the disease’s progression.

The unusual contract award bypassed standard procedures. The CDC did not announce a research funding opportunity or invite competitive proposals. According to a CDC official who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, the proposal was unsolicited and did not undergo customary ethical review. Instead, Department of Health and Human Services officials reportedly instructed CDC officials to approve it, promising special funding.

The official revealed that CDC staff have been expressing outrage through private channels about the award’s approval.

The research team claims the study was approved by a national ethics committee in Guinea-Bissau and presents an “unusual window of opportunity” because the country currently doesn’t recommend hepatitis B vaccination at birth but plans to implement universal newborn vaccination by 2027.

Critics, however, question the researchers’ track record. Past work by Benn and her husband, Peter Aaby, who co-lead the Bandim Health Project, has faced scrutiny from other scientists. Danish researchers have previously identified questionable research practices in their work, and earlier this year, former CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden wrote an editorial describing a 2017 study co-authored by Aaby and Benn as “fundamentally flawed.”

The decision has prompted harsh criticism from prominent scientists. Carl Bergstrom, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Washington, characterized it as the “Guinea-Bissau HBV vaccine depravation trial” in a social media post, questioning if Kennedy had consulted “the first name in the antivax yellow pages.”

Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virus expert at the University of Saskatchewan, accused Kennedy of directing taxpayer money to his “cronies” for a “grossly unethical study that will expose African babies to hep B for no reason.”

In response to mounting criticism, HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon stated, “we will ensure the highest scientific and ethical standards are met.” Benn did not respond to requests for comment, with an automatic email response indicating she is out of office until early January.

The controversial study continues to raise significant questions about research ethics, vaccine policy, and the influence of vaccine skepticism within the current administration’s public health decisions.