HONG KONG: As Washington and Beijing tussle for dominance in frontier technologies, there’s one area in which competition shouldn’t preclude collaboration: innovative medicines. Beijing’s latest five-year plan for the biotechnology sector details how the country wants to lead the field globally. Unusually for an industrial blueprint, it comes with numeric targets.

By 2030, Chinese drugmakers are expected to have made a“major leap” in competitiveness with sales of new medications growing 20 per cent annually. Pharmaceutical companies aim to develop at least 25 per cent of the world’s first-in-class medicines, which are drugs that work in an entirely new way to treat a condition. They’re also expected to have originated at least five blockbuster therapies with sales of more than US$1 billion a year.

BETTING ON CHINESE RESEARCH These ambitions aren’t as farfetched as they might seem. Decades of policy support, including investment in education, have helped turn the country into an increasingly fertile source of innovation from a follower in drug development.

Big Pharma has taken notice. To replenish their pipeline before a slew of lucrative patents expire, global companies have gone on a shopping spree, particularly in areas such as cancer and obesity treatments where China excels. Over the past five years, the value of overseas drug-licensing deals has surged more than 10-fold to a record US$134 billion.

Recent deals illustrate the strength of international demand. Last week, Novo Nordisk agreed to pay Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals as much as US$2.6 billion for rights to an experimental obesity pill that can be taken just once a week. The deal stood out for its hefty US$300 million upfront payment for a therapy that has no human trial data.

The willingness to place such a large bet so early demonstrates how Western drugmakers now value Chinese research. Because the two mainstream oral GLP-1 weight-loss drugs (from Novo and Eli Lilly) require daily dosing, a successful weekly alternative holds obvious commercial appeal. On Friday (Oct 2), Novartis struck an even bigger deal with Abogen Biosciences, paying as much as US$7.8 billion for an experimental mRNA treatment for autoimmune diseases.

That success has created a dilemma for Washington. The argument goes that if pharma giants can license cheaper Chinese molecules rather than funding American startups, it will drain capital and expertise from the US biotech ecosystem. The logic resembles the US government’s export controls on advanced semiconductors, which are intended to prevent US-designed chips from helping accelerate China’s AI development or curb Chinese carmakers’ access to the US market.

The US has already sought to cut its reliance on Chinese biotechnology companies through the Biosecure Act, which restricts federal agencies from working with designated companies. A bipartisan proposal introduced this year would go further, potentially limiting the kind of licensing deals now attracting Western drugmakers.

RESTRICTIONS WILL BE A MISTAKE But that would be a mistake. Novel medicines can’t be treated in the same zero-sum way as semiconductors, electric vehicles or large language models where one competitor’s win comes at the expense of the other. The industry is inherently collaborative, especially in life sciences. The origin of a lifesaving treatment matters far less than whether patients can get access to it.

The US Treasury Department appears to understand the distinction. It’s considering rules that would preserve American drugmakers’ ability to license innovative treatments from Chinese companies, Reuters reported recently, while restricting investments involving pathogens or technology that could be weaponised. It’s a sensible approach. Washington has a strong incentive to keep potentially dangerous technologies out of an adversary’s hands, but that doesn’t mean every discovery from Shanghai is a national security threat.

To be sure, the US absolutely should be trying to beat China in the biotech race with its greater access to capital and a larger cohort of international scientists. That’s why the Trump administration would be wise to back away from further cuts to America’s top science agencies, whose funding supports the basic research that can ultimately produce commercial breakthroughs, and which draws top scientific talent to the country. Washington could also press ahead with plans to create a supply chain that is independent of China for producing raw materials needed to make generic medicines.

There are legitimate reasons to ensure domestic pharmaceutical capacity and preserve US innovation. But restricting access to foreign medicines is not the way to accomplish that goal. Washington should try to outdo China, not ignore its innovations.