Opinion: America’s biotech race with China must be won at home

United States Must Strengthen Native Biotech Innovation to Counter China’s Rising Influence

The United States continues to lead the world in biotechnology, yet China is closing the gap faster than anticipated. While Washington has prioritized containment strategies—such as imposing tariffs and tightening export controls—it risks undermining the very innovations that sustain American competitiveness. Ensuring national security means prioritizing the cultivation of domestic biotech advances and expanding the nation’s capacity to conduct cutting‑edge research.

Beijing announced a five‑year plan to elevate biomedicine to a national pillar industry. Targeting a quarter of world‑class first‑in‑class medicines by 2030, the strategy calls for an annual growth rate of twenty percent for the innovative‑drug sector, accelerated regulatory pathways, and reinforced safeguards for advanced drug development.

China now tops the global rankings in the number of clinical trial initiations. As of 2025, medicinal compounds designed in China account for nearly thirty percent of all drugs under development worldwide—up from under seven percent a decade earlier—and roughly twenty percent of the active ingredients deemed essential by the FDA are manufactured by Chinese labs.

If China emerges as the dominant force in biotech, it will grant Beijing considerable leverage over U.S. public health initiatives and security planning, threatening America’s ability to shape medical innovation and jeopardizing economic stability and military readiness.

Consider the danger posed by broad tariff regimes on numerous drug ingredients. While intended to reshore production, such measures could disrupt critical supply chains before reliable domestic capacity matures, driving up costs and risking medication shortfalls.

Similarly, sweeping limits on U.S. biotech collaborations and investments with Chinese firms would sever American companies’ access to the most promising experimental therapies, diminishing America’s competitive edge and granting Chinese firms greater control over their distribution.

To stay ahead, Washington must concentrate on strengthening the cornerstone of the U.S. biotech ecosystem. First, it must expand domestic manufacturing capability for vital medicines and active pharmaceutical ingredients, creating resilient supply lanes that mitigate the influence of foreign competitors.

Second, the administration should deepen coordination with strategic allies in Asia, Europe, North Africa, and the Americas. By aligning with partners such as Japan, South Korea, the European Union, and India on joint research, clinical trials, and manufacturing, the United States can cultivate a collaborative alternative that is both secure and economically viable.

A critical priority is reinforcing the research infrastructure that established American biotech supremacy—sustained federal funding for fundamental science, a robust university‑corporate pipeline for talent development, and immigration policies that attract elite scientific minds. Without this foundation, any effort to counter Chinese advancements will lack depth and durability.

Biotech export controls could inadvertently prompt China to accelerate independent technological development, mirroring outcomes observed in semiconductor, 5G, and other strategic sectors where restriction alone proved insufficient. A holistic approach that builds indigenous capacity offers the most durable defense against foreign dominance.

Therefore, the path forward rests on three pillars: bolster domestic manufacturing, strengthen alliance‑based cooperation, and safeguard the lifecycle of biotech research itself. Through coordinated action and sustained investment, the United States can retain its leadership in innovation while curbing China’s rising influence.

STAT Plus:China tightens the reins on clinical trials, even as the U.S. looks for ways to replicate its rival’s speed

That intensifying scrutiny reflects broader concerns among policymakers who fear losing biotech ground to a determined competitor.

Among those urging restraint are former Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, who once reformed export‑control frameworks to shield sensitivity, and Representative Patrick McHenry, whose long tenure spurred export rules aimed at curbing technology flows to adversarial states.

Yet the administration’s legacy emphasizes that restrictive policies can backfire when they destabilize core strengths. Broad bans that target widely used drug inputs threaten fragile supply networks, cause inflation, and risk shortages before domestic alternatives scale.

Equally risky is sweeping restrictions on cross‑border biotech partnerships. Limiting involvement with Chinese entities would shutter valuable collaborative opportunities that hold promise for rapid therapeutic advancement, weakening America’s competitive edge and allowing Chinese firms to dominate access to emerging cures.

Moreover, export controls could incentivize China to develop parallel manufacturing capabilities abroad. Historical experience shows that semiconductor and 5G restrictions alone have failed to halt China’s industrial catch‑up, suggesting a similar lesson applies to biotechnology.

Consequently, the strategic choice lies not between isolation and total openness, but between building resilient, homegrown capacity versus ceding ground.

First, Washington should prioritize domestic and allied manufacturing of critical therapeutics and essential precursors to ensure supply security and reduce reliance on potentially hostile partners.

Second, deeper alignment with trusted international partners will broaden the U.S.-led biotech ecosystem, creating shared standards, joint research hubs, and mutually beneficial supply chains that counteract unilateral Chinese advantages.

Finally, restoring and expanding federal support for early‑stage basic research, interdisciplinary training, and merit‑driven migration remains indispensable. The United States built its historic biotech edge on sustained public investment, world‑class academic centers, and a welcoming immigration regime—principles that are being abandoned at peril.

By executing this three‑pronged strategy—domestic capacity enhancement, alliance diversification, and nurturing the research pipeline—the United States can safeguard its leadership in biotechnology and preserve national interest.

Gary Locke is the former U.S. ambassador to China, U.S. secretary of commerce, and governor of Washington. Patrick McHenry is a former U.S. representative from North Carolina and former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Both serve as senior advisers to the American Biosecurity Initiative.

]]>

Source link