China’s Biotech Ambitions: The Growing Threat to America’s Leadership

Over the past decade, China has executed a sustained, long-range strategy to build a globally competitive biopharmaceutical sector. Through coordinated investment and policy, the country has moved from “me-too” products to cutting-edge therapies, while elevating regulatory and manufacturing standards to global norms. And it’s working.

On Dec. 11, We Work For Health convened a full room of stakeholders for a critical discussion on China’s accelerating biopharmaceutical ambitions and what it means for U.S. innovation, security and patient access.

The conversation, moderated by Dan Leonard, Executive Director of WWFH, featured leading voices from policy, industry and national security:

• Caitlin Gearen Frazer, executive director, National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB)

• Stephen Ezell, vice president, Global Innovation Policy, and director, Center for Life Sciences Innovation, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF)

• Martijn Rasser, senior director for economy, Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP)

• Kasper Roet, PhD, CEO and co-founder, QurAlis

China’s biopharmaceutical sector has shifted from follower to front-runner, expanding research activity, accelerating drug approvals, and attracting capital at a pace that rivals global leaders.

Panelists agreed: U.S. leadership is not guaranteed. It depends on urgent, coordinated action, including:

• Passing bipartisan national security measures

• Enhancing biotech coordination efforts

• Incentivizing domestic manufacturing and innovation

Frazer noted that NCSEB’s April congressional report outlined 49 policy recommendations to counter China’s push for biotech dominance.

She underscored the national security implications if the U.S. cedes sector leadership. 

“The Chinese government has a historical pattern of creating supply chain vulnerabilities in other technology sectors and then weaponizing them for geopolitical leverage,” Frazer said. “We saw that happen with Chinese dominance in rare earth material production and processing and the ability to stop export of certain materials that are critical for U.S. electronics or weapon systems or any number of other things on the eve of trade talks. So, what does that create? That creates negotiating leverage. That creates geopolitical leverage.

“Now, imagine if that's the cure for cancer, if this investment in CAR-T (cell therapy) equates to China being the place where a cure for cancer is finally found. How much would we as individuals give or do or pay to be able to provide that cure to our loved ones? …That's enormous potential geopolitical leverage through the potential exploitation of supply chain vulnerabilities.”

SCSP has similarly studied the systemic upswing in China’s capabilities. Rasser noted a company used AI to help move a drug from discovery to Phase 2 trials in just 18 months, versus the typical four to five years.

“We’re [also] seeing the results in patents,” Rasser said. “China currently files more patents for AI and drug discovery than any other nation. That's, in my mind, a big warning flag that we need to pay attention to.”

Meanwhile, China’s incentives and streamlined regulations are drawing young innovators, many U.S.-educated, back home. Roet reflected on his own journey moving from the Netherlands to Boston to collaborate with other neurodegenerative biologists to co-found QurAlis.

“The U.S. being the best in biotechnology is what drove me to the United States,” Roet said.

“Before the United States, it was Germany who was the best in science. That torch has been taken over by the United States for many, many decades now. And I think people take it for granted, and then you get very comfortable, and you think that you can keep it, but it doesn't work like that. You have to continue to be the best if you want to be the best at something.”

If the U.S. loses its global leadership in drug innovation, China won’t be at fault. American complacency will be.

Ezell, whose team at ITIF has driven groundbreaking research in this space, closed with a stark reminder.

“I think our policymakers think that America's biopharmaceutical industry is so strong that we can take its health for granted and continually pick at it,” said Ezell, who likened the behavior to the plot in the classic children's book, The Giving Tree. “So, we can do things like introduce drug price controls and most favored nation pricing. Or we can give away intellectual property during the Covid crisis. Or we can do Bayh-Dole March-In Rights. Or we can take a tax of 5% on patents and take university revenues.

“What we have to do is stop the unforced errors, stop the own goals that are inhibiting the competitiveness of this industry, and then implement all the good policies that Caitlin and Martin and Casper have been talking about.

“We have to take this seriously. It is not guaranteed that we lead this industry in the future, and policymakers have to get eagle-eyed, crystal-focused about that, making sure we have the policy framework in place to ensure continued U.S. leadership.”

Learn more at weworkforhealth.org/china