-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
As China scales biotech innovation with global impact, India must act fast to secure its place in a field as strategic as it is scientific.
Image Source: Getty
This is the 175th in the China Chronicles series
Biotechnology is a critical emerging technology holding significant potential in addressing various challenges, particularly in healthcare. China’s dominance as a biotech powerhouse is marred by prominent narratives focusing on biosecurity. This includes the use of genetic data for discriminatory or malicious purposes, and more recently, a possible ‘DeepSeek moment’ in biotech as Chinese firms are increasingly developing innovative and globally competitive products. While these concerns are valid, China’s biotech advancement—viewed through technological and societal lenses—reflects its early recognition of the sector as a national priority, enabling long-term strategic investment. This underscores biotech’s capacity to promote economic growth and modernisation, and offers insight for India’s aspirations as a biotech power.
China’s dominance as a biotech powerhouse is marred by prominent narratives focusing on biosecurity.
Global narratives on China’s role in biotech centre on bioethics and biosecurity concerns. Some notable instances include—the human embryonic CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) gene-editing scandal, the alleged lack of transparency in the sharing of genetic information to trace the origin of COVID-19, and the sensationalised portrayal of the applications of synthetic biology. Consequently, the Biden-era United States (US) Biosecure Act prohibits companies from receiving federal funds if they engage in business with certain Chinese biotech firms. The Trump administration halted federal funding for dangerous gain-of-function research conducted by foreign entities in countries deemed concerning, such as China. As a result of the Biosecure Act, the United States prohibited the import of materials and equipment from certain Chinese companies, including the leading genomics firm, BGI Group (formerly known as the Beijing Genomics Institute). China responded by banning the import of equipment from its American competitor, Illumina. Thus, the focus has been on prioritising biotechnology as part of a wider technological decoupling strategy, drawing attention away from its immense benefits. However, China can no longer be considered merely as the hub of generics or a copycat of Western medicines. Instead, it is heavily invested in innovation-based research in biologics, gene-editing therapies, and targeted cancer therapies.
According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s (ASPI) Critical Technology Tracker—a data-driven project that analyses trends in research and innovation in science and technology (S&T) domains—China is at the forefront of innovation in biotech. Notable achievements include the development of the world’s first CRISPR-Cas13 RNA (ribonucleic acid) editing-based therapy to counter age-related macular degeneration by Huida Gene Therapeutics, a global biotech company based out of Shanghai and New Jersey. It recently received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on encouraging results from a first-in-human trial conducted in China. Ivonescimab—an immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer developed by Chinese drugmaker Akeso—outperformed one of the world’s top-selling cancer drugs, pembrolizumab (Keytruda), in phase III clinical trials. More recently, an American Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered drug discovery start-up—Insilico Medicine—made headlines with the development of the world’s first fully generative AI-discovered drug, rentosertib. Chemical testing and phase II clinical trials were conducted in China, where Insilico Medicine has established a research and development centre. These triumphs have been facilitated through clear-cut bridges between biomedical research and the industry, a robust clinical research infrastructure, a large talent pool proficient in life sciences, and large-scale investments in science parks and industry clusters dedicated to high-quality research and development.
Chemical testing and phase II clinical trials were conducted in China, where Insilico Medicine has established a research and development centre.
The evolution of China’s biotech industry did not happen overnight. A long-term ambition under Deng Xiaoping's ‘opening up and reform’ policies placed indigenous development in S&T at the forefront. China’s 863 programme, or the National High Technology Research and Development Programme—launched in 1986—focused on building infrastructural and technological capacity of the biotech industry to address domestic needs, and set up special economic zones such as Shenzhen to encourage foreign investments and knowledge transfer. These efforts led to China becoming the world’s leading manufacturer of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs).
Nonetheless, a fragmented biotech policy ecosystem marked by limited commercial avenues, regulatory bottlenecks, and a lack of innovation-based drug discovery spurred China to launch a series of policies that placed biotech as a national priority. ‘Made in China 2025’ initiative (2015) emphasised on widening the industrial and manufacturing capacity; ‘Healthy China 2030’ plan incorporated biotech into health systems research as a means to improve population health (2016); and a Priority Review and Approval Process programme ensured accelerated regulatory approval of clinically important drugs (2016). Further, under the umbrella of ‘High-End Foreign Talents Plan,’ China’s brain gain policies led to the recruitment of highly skilled workers—scientists, innovators, entrepreneurs, and students—from overseas into science and tech domains, significantly strengthening China’s talent pool and technological capacity. Reformation of best practices in the life sciences, including peer review for determining academic merit and placing primacy on applied research, has been attributed to these brain gain policies. Moreover, DeepSeek’s entry, which sent shockwaves in the AI community, represents the efforts of researchers who were educated in China, with only a quarter of them having gained work experience in the US before returning to China. Not only did DeepSeek mark China’s prowess in disruptive technologies, but it also signifies that China is less reliant on foreign training for its tech development, which may apply to biotech as well.
Reformation of best practices in the life sciences, including peer review for determining academic merit and placing primacy on applied research, has been attributed to these brain gain policies.
In March 2025, China announced the setup of a national venture capital guidance fund—a public-private partnership (PPP)-based investment vehicle, aimed at mobilising 1 trillion yuan (US$138 billion). The fund will support entrepreneurship in disruptive technologies, including biotech and AI. This year’s ‘Two Sessions’ meeting renewed emphasis on China’s economic growth model, which is premised on the development of ‘new quality productive forces.’ The approach ‘grants innovation a leading role,’ reiterating China’s aim to achieve self-reliance in biotech and augmenting its global competitiveness in the sector.
India’s biotech industry has grown from US$10 billion to US$130 billion from 2015 to 2024 and is expected to reach US$300 billion by 2030. New policies—BioE3 (Biotechnology for Economy, Environment and Employment) and Bio-RIDE (Biotechnology Research Innovation and Entrepreneurship Development)—reflect India’s policy alignment for a biotech-driven economy. Notable Indian breakthroughs include the development of the world’s most affordable cancer immunotherapy—NexCAR9, conducting the first-in-human gene therapy trial for Haemophilia, and most recently, producing India’s first gene-edited rice varieties.
However, India’s biotech developmental trajectory lags in innovation compared to China. Innovation is crucial for achieving biotech sovereignty, reducing reliance on foreign entities, and safeguarding essential supply chains from external disruptions. India’s R&D expenditure as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is 0.7 percent, while China’s is 2.6 percent. To bridge this deficit, the Indian government recently announced an INR one lakh crore R&D fund and the deep tech fund of funds, which need to be operationalised immediately. Further, investment is limited in emerging biotech areas and requires strengthening bridges between academic research and industry partners through institutional mechanisms. Harmonisation of regulatory pathways between various national agencies is necessary as complex, redundant, and lengthy approval processes dissuade investment and render India unable to compete with its global counterparts. Lastly, recent diplomatic and geopolitical changes to US relations, particularly new international student visa regulations and tightening of immigration rules, offer India a brain gain opportunity to absorb its talent and foster India’s biotech ecosystem.
Innovation is crucial for achieving biotech sovereignty, reducing reliance on foreign entities, and safeguarding essential supply chains from external disruptions.
Biotech remains a critical technology that can develop life-saving and life-altering therapies for patients. Biotech policy discourse in India needs to be premised on ensuring systematic and fluid pathways to harness the potential of biotechnology alongside a consideration of safeguards. Recent geopolitical shifts signal that biotech is part of a wider technological decoupling strategy. However, this threat must not prevent India from expanding its biotech ecosystem. The development of critical technologies is a source of power, leaving biotech’s 'DeepSeek moment' up for grabs.
Lakshmy Ramakrishnan is an Associate Fellow with the Health Initiative at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Lakshmy is an Associate Fellow with ORF’s Centre for New Economic Diplomacy. Her work focuses on the intersection of biotechnology, health, and international relations, with a ...
Read More +
PREV
