US sanctions on China could extend to biotech, official says

There are signs that China may lose access to other U.S. technologies after the Biden administration imposed sanctions on China.

According to The Washington Post, the Commerce Department's undersecretary for industry and security said that there are areas on his radar.

It is worrying for an industry that is global. Climate policy is one of the few areas where nationalities and boundaries can't be separated. Saving lives in the U.S. could be done by scientific progress in China.

The globalization of the sector has made it more efficient. In the past, we've written about how biotech firms often maintain a presence in China and the U.S. to take advantage of the strengths of both sides. Large reams of patient data, fast and cost-efficient clinical trials, as well as local tax cuts, government funding, and subsidized offices are all found in China.

To tap the country's R&D talent, they keep operations in the U.S. It is not uncommon to see pharma companies labeling themselves as "born global" and employing executives with experience in China, the U.S., and other countries.

NovaXS was founded by a Berkeley researcher but conducts clinical trials in China. In Boston, Xtalpi keeps multiple R&D centers across China while maintaining close communication with professors and experts from the research community.

Alex Zhavoronov compared the space to the early Semiconductor industry where research was done mostly in the U.S. while hardware production happened in China. Contract research organizations conduct work for international pharmaceutical and medical device companies in Eastern China's city of Wuxi.

If you start from the target discovery you will fail 95- 99% of the time. The process for putting a drug on the market takes 10 to 15 years and costs $2 to $3 billion.

This huge risk and cost can be shared through international collaboration. Politicians show a lack of fundamental understanding of the industry and disregard for the health and well-being of their electorate by limiting collaboration in this field.

Two U.S. scholars wrote for ChinaFile that treating the biotech sector with a security-driven approach could hurt U.S. competitiveness.

Unlike the semiconductor and telecommunication sectors, whose development depends on expensive equipment and hard-to-acquire manufacturing expertise, barriers to entry in biotechnology are low. Likewise, as Eric Lander’s now infamous mapping of CRISPR’s development illustrates, both foundational research and key innovations in biotechnology often take place in the public domain and build on incremental advancements made across the globe. When breakthroughs, like employing CRISPR as a means of gene-editing, do occur they spread through global scientific networks with little heed for national boundaries. Consequently, it is not a zero-sum industry in which a single innovation sets any firm or country ahead for a prolonged period.