Is it reasonable to describe this as a “difference of opinion between scientists”? Per the OP article:

* it was a Trump political appointee who had made a “shocking” decision to not even review the vaccine

* it was despite the objections of the subject matter experts and career scientists

* it was despite the submitted study results being exactly what the FDA had previously approved

* the vote to go the opposite direction of him was unanimous

I mean sure, you could find an odd scientist who doesn't believe in something that 99.999% of scientists agree on, appoint them as the political head of an agency to overrule the 99.999% of scientists, and call that a “difference of opinion between scientists”, but…