Washington's Biotech Leaders Sound Alarm: China Is Winning

A congresswoman, a senator, a Fortune 500 CEO, and a health industry chief executive sat down at Axios House on Sept. 23 and delivered a single, urgent message: the United States is at risk of losing a 50-year biotech advantage to China, and the federal government is not organized to fight back. Across four panels, they laid out specific legislative vehicles, dollar figures, and institutional gaps — alongside sharp disagreements on drug pricing — that will shape the biotech policy debate heading into the next congressional session.

• Sen. Todd Young says China leads the US in biomanufacturing and is racing to genetically sequence 1% of the world's population; over half of the National Security Commission's 49 recommendations are now law, but the top priority — a single federal biotech coordinator — remains unfilled

• Genentech's CEO reveals AI is already compressing early drug discovery from years to months, but warns PhD program admissions dropped 15% this fall due to federal funding slowdowns

• Rep. April McClain Delaney pushes the bipartisan SCALE Act, a $350 million investment to empower NIST with biotech measurement standards as China floods international standard-setting conferences

• Healthcare Leadership Council opposes Medicare drug price negotiation and most-favored-nation pricing, arguing the policies would drive capital overseas just as China ramps up its biopharma ambitions

• Multiple panelists call for FDA modernization, moving from static document submissions to real-time, data-driven reviews to keep pace with AI-accelerated drug development

• All speakers urge a federal AI framework to prevent a state-by-state regulatory patchwork

America's $15 Billion Biotech Security Gap

The basics: The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, co-chaired by Sen. Todd Young (R-Indiana) and Sen. Alex Padilla, has produced 49 recommendations spanning offensive and defensive biotech strategy. The commission sunsets at the end of 2026.

Why it matters: Sen. Young painted a picture of a biotechnology race the US does not yet fully appreciate — one where the same science that cures cancer can produce bioweapons and threaten food supplies. China, he said, is not waiting.

Where things stand: Over half of the commission's 49 recommendations have been enacted into law — an unusual success rate for a federal advisory body. The total implementation price tag: $15 billion.

"$15 billion is what every single recommendation added together requires to implement," said Sen. Young, Chair of the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology.

But the commission's most critical recommendation remains unaddressed: appointing a single person within the executive branch to coordinate biotech strategy across all federal agencies.

"There's no one who actually is in charge of biotech across all agencies of government. This was like the first recommendation of our biotech commission," Sen. Young said.

He described China's ambitions in stark terms: the country leads the US in biomanufacturing — with roughly 80% of US capacity directed at biofuels — and is systematically cataloging the world's biological resources.

"They see biological data as the feedstock for future innovation, which is why they are trying to genetically sequence 1% of the world's population in the next several years," Sen. Young said.

The other side: Sen. Young acknowledged the uncomfortable reality that biological threats require cooperation even with adversaries. He endorsed broadening the existing US-China deconfliction mechanism — currently focused on AI and nuclear risks — to include biological threats.

"I can't imagine Xi Jinping wants the entire world to be susceptible to outbreaks of what could be horrific biological terror attacks or even accidental events in the future," he said. "For better or for worse, we are going to have to coordinate certain activities and protective measures with the PRC."

What's next: The commission sunsets at the end of 2026. Sen. Young said he is in discussions with outside stakeholders about continuing the work. He also emphasized the importance of making the current administration's executive actions permanent through legislation.

Genentech's 'Lab in the Loop' Is Already Changing Drug Discovery

Why it matters: Drug development currently takes 10 to 15 years per molecule, costs $2 to $3 billion, and fails 90% of the time. Genentech CEO Ashley Magary told the audience that AI is already beginning to change that math.

Where things stand: Genentech's approach — which the company calls "lab in the loop" — uses an algorithm to predict what scientists should study, feeds real experimental results back into the model, and iterates. The result: molecular work that once took years is now being compressed into months.

"We actually are seeing an acceleration. We have now molecules that used to take us maybe years to work on that now we're actually condensing into about months," said Ashley Magary, CEO of Genentech.

Magary projected that within a decade, the industry will look back astonished at how long drug development used to take. She also noted AI could eventually enable earlier patient diagnosis — catching cancers and Alzheimer's before symptoms emerge — with transformative implications for treatment outcomes.

But she flagged two barriers threatening the US advantage. First, the talent pipeline: PhD program admissions fell 15% this fall compared to the prior year, a decline she attributed to federal funding slowdowns.

"That should really concern us as a country because this is the next generation of scientists that Genentech is going to hire," Magary said.

Second, FDA processes have not kept up with the pace of innovation.

"We've got to move from these very static document submissions to doing much more data-driven, real-time reviews so that the FDA can both keep up with the pace, but at the same time maintain their rigorous standards," she said.

Magary cautioned that clinical testing in humans — observing endpoints and verifying efficacy — cannot be dramatically shortened. But she was unequivocal about the broader stakes.

"Leadership in America in biotech has been an enormous competitive advantage for this country for the last 50 years. But we cannot take that for granted," she said.

The SCALE Act: $350 Million to Keep the US in the Standards Game

The basics: Rep. April McClain Delaney (D-Hometown) introduced the bipartisan SCALE Act within the past four months. The bill would empower NIST — the National Institute of Standards and Technology — to establish biometrology standards for the biotech arena, at an estimated cost of roughly $350 million over five years.

Why it matters: Without trusted, standardized biotech data, US companies and regulators cannot effectively leverage AI — because, as Rep. Delaney put it, output quality depends on input quality. And at international standard-setting conferences, the US is vastly outnumbered.

"There would be hundreds of scientists from China and people from their government that would show up to really work on standard setting. And on our side, we'd have some from FCC or State or NTIA," Rep. Delaney said, drawing from her prior experience in telecom and spectrum negotiations at the International Telecommunication Union.

Where things stand: The SCALE Act advanced out of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee with support from Reps. Obernolte, Loughran, and Mullen. Rep. Delaney said she hopes the bill will receive a Senate companion and urged the audience — heavy with Washington policy leaders — to champion the commission's broader recommendations.

She framed the stakes in sweeping terms, citing Hoover Institution fellow Drew Endy: "Biology is now becoming a general-purpose technology. It's not just about life sciences."

Rep. Delaney also expressed deep frustration with federal research funding cuts, saying reductions to NIH, NIST, NOAA, cancer trials, and the closure of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center have "ripped my heart out this past 18 months."

Drug Pricing Clash: Innovation vs. Access

Why it matters: With Congress weighing drug pricing provisions in reconciliation legislation (H.R. 1) and the administration negotiating most-favored-nation (MFN) pricing deals with individual companies, the biotech industry's investment environment hangs in the balance.

Where things stand: Maria Gozold, President and CEO of the Healthcare Leadership Council, argued forcefully that Medicare drug price negotiation and codifying MFN pricing into statute would undermine US biotech leadership.

"Those other aspects, whether it's the price negotiations or putting MFN into law, is something that will truly inhibit innovation and will take us a step backwards," Gozold said.

She drew a distinction between individual MFN deals — which she characterized as business decisions — and locking MFN into law, calling the latter "very short-sighted" and warning it would "end up backfiring."

The other side: Axios Senior Healthcare Reporter Caitlin Owens pressed Gozold directly: "Why should policymakers believe that protecting drugmakers from greater pricing pressure from the government, especially in light of these ways to make the drug development process cheaper, will translate into more innovation rather than just higher revenues?"

Gozold responded that the HLC — which represents diverse healthcare sectors — is united in opposing price controls. She connected the issue to international competition, arguing that if the US fails to maintain the right investment environment, capital will flow to other countries.

On China specifically, Gozold warned against over-restricting US access to Chinese early-stage drug assets: "If we restrict ourselves too much, China will really, if you think about it, have the upper hand. They'll have so much more control."

Gozold also called for a federal AI framework to prevent a state-by-state regulatory patchwork: "We need some kind of way to guide what's going to happen here. Because otherwise, a state-by-state way to look at AI is no way to go."

She reported that the HLC met with the acting FDA Commissioner earlier that day, and the agency expressed a desire to be "innovators and not only regulators."

On patient access, Gozold emphasized that insurance coverage — through government programs, employer plans, or ACA exchanges — is the prerequisite for patients to benefit from breakthrough medicines. She pointed to H.R. 1 provisions, enhanced premium tax credits, and potential changes to ACA exchange enrollment as active policy fronts that will determine real-world access.