U.S. leadership in biotechnology is no longer guaranteed as China accelerates from discovery to licensing and manufacturing. In Forbes contributor’s Rita Numerof’s view, this is not just an industry story but a strategic one: the choices U.S. policymakers make now will determine whether America sustains its edge in a domain central to health, economic growth, and national security.
“U.S. biotech leadership can no longer be taken for granted as China gains speed from discovery through manufacturing, “now [leading] the world in clinical trials and new drug licensing.”
—Rita Numerof, Forbes, “The Next Great Race: Why America Can’t Afford to Lose Biotech Leadership to China,” Oct 7, 2025.
Numerof situates biotech alongside other strategic sectors where over-reliance on foreign production has previously exposed the U.S. to supply-chain shocks. The early pandemic months, she notes, revealed just how dependent the U.S. had become on overseas active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs). Her broader warning is forward-looking: if discovery and early-stage development also migrate abroad, the U.S. could lose first access to breakthrough therapies, cede control over standards and clinical data, and hand rivals geopolitical leverage.
She attributes China’s momentum to deliberate policy: direct public investment, regulatory agility, and assertive IP and licensing strategies. Western firms are increasingly licensing compounds from Chinese startups; each deal, she argues, is not merely commercial but a “shift in global leverage.” By contrast, U.S. innovators face a drag from regulatory layers, inconsistent reimbursement signals, and uncertainty tied to price-control debates (e.g., IRA implementation and revived “Most Favored Nation” concepts). Add Wall Street’s short-termism and Washington’s bureaucracy, and you get a structural environment that punishes high-risk, long-horizon R&D.
Photo: Depositphotos
Numerof proposes a three-lever response:
- Strategic investment and on-shoring. Expand targeted incentives for domestic R&D, advanced biomanufacturing, and workforce development—ideally within U.S. borders or allied networks. The goal is resilient capacity, not blanket protectionism.
- Regulatory modernization. Streamline FDA pathways to preserve safety while accelerating trials and reviews. The emphasis is speed with rigor, enabling U.S. firms to move at the pace global competition now demands.
- A long-term value framework. Reframe “cost” and “value” in drug development so payment and coverage policies reward durable innovation rather than only near-term affordability metrics. Alignment from approval to reimbursement is essential to keep private capital engaged in risky science.
She underscores that the Administration’s tariff agenda may start a necessary conversation on resilience, but tariffs alone won’t secure leadership. What’s needed is coherence: policies that consistently signal the U.S. intends to compete—and win—in biotech. The country still holds formidable advantages (universities, capital markets, a culture of entrepreneurship), yet these can erode without strategy and staying power.
Her closing reminder is stark and timely:
“Biotechnology is not just another industry. It’s a key pillar of our future health, security and competitiveness.”
The policy test is whether the U.S. can align investment, regulation, and value frameworks quickly enough to keep discovery, development, and manufacturing anchored on allied soil.