WASHINGTON — 

Lawmakers in the United States are expressing concern over the country’s inability to keep up with China in the field of biotechnology, citing potential threats to national security and business interests. However, as the competition between the two countries grows in the biotech sector, others argue that excluding Chinese companies would ultimately be detrimental to the U.S.

The use of biotechnology by scientists and researchers has the potential to greatly impact everyday life, through advancements in medical treatment, genetic engineering in agriculture, and novel biomaterials. This has attracted the interest of both Chinese and U.S. governments due to its promising capabilities.

Proposed legislation in both the House and Senate aims to prohibit federally funded medical providers from conducting business with “foreign adversary biotech companies of concern.” The companies specifically named in the bills are all Chinese-owned.

The Chinese Embassy has stated that the creators of the bills possess a biased ideology and are attempting to unjustly restrict Chinese companies using fabricated justifications. They have demanded that Chinese companies receive fair and unbiased treatment.

The discussion surrounding biotechnology coincides with the Biden administration’s efforts to improve the uncertain relationship between the United States and China. This relationship has been negatively impacted by various factors such as a trade dispute, the COVID-19 crisis, cybersecurity concerns, and increased military presence in the South China Sea.

Opponents of the law caution that limitations on Chinese corporations could hinder progress that has the potential to benefit society.

Abigail Coplin, an assistant professor at Vassar College who focuses on China’s biotech industry, stated that in this field, it is not possible to remain competitive by isolating oneself from others. She expressed concern that U.S. policymakers may become too fixated on the technology’s potential military uses, which could hinder progress in finding cures for diseases and addressing global food shortages.

Rachel King, CEO of Biotechnology Innovation Organization, wrote to senators supporting the bill, stating that it would have a harmful impact on the drug development supply chain for both currently approved treatments and future development efforts.

However, advocates argue that the bill is essential in safeguarding U.S. interests.

The U.S. Senate’s National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, which was established to assess the industry, stated that the legislation would protect both federal government and American citizen data and discourage unethical competition from Chinese companies.

The commission cautioned that progress in biotechnology can lead to not just financial advantages, but also swift alterations in military capabilities.

Representative Mike Gallagher, who chairs the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, stated that there is a lot at risk. Gallagher was responsible for proposing the House’s version of the legislation and recently led a group of congressional representatives to Boston to hold discussions with biotech leaders.

According to Gallagher, this is not simply a fight over supply chains, national security, or economic security. He argues that it is also a moral and ethical battle. As the industry continues to rapidly advance, the nation that emerges victorious will ultimately determine the ethical guidelines for the use of these technologies.

According to him, it is imperative for the U.S. to establish and enforce certain standards, or else we will end up in a world with less freedom and morality.

Both the United States and China, the top two economies in the world, have recognized biotechnology as a crucial national priority.

The Biden administration has proposed a comprehensive strategy to promote biotechnology and biomanufacturing, which are crucial for addressing health, climate change, energy, food security, agriculture, and supply chain stability.

The Chinese government intends to establish a “national strategic technology force” focused on biotech, with the goal of making advancements and aiding China in achieving “technological autonomy,” particularly from the U.S.

The Chinese government and the United States have both recognized biotechnology as a key area for investment, seeing it as a potential way to boost their economies,” stated Tom Bollyky, the Bloomberg chair in global health at the Council on Foreign Relations. He suggested that any U.S. restrictions should be specifically designed to address military and genomic data security concerns.

According to Bollyky, there will inevitably be competition in the field, but what makes biotechnology particularly difficult is that it involves the well-being of humans.

Ray Yip, the founder of the China office for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, expresses concern that competition will hinder progress in the medical field.

According to Yip, the advantages of improving diagnostic and therapeutic methods extend beyond any particular country and should not diminish the capabilities or reputation of other countries.

Anna Puglisi, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, is troubled by Beijing’s lack of openness and its unjust business tactics. She stated, “Competition can be healthy, but when it is unfair, it becomes a problem.”

According to Puglisi, BGI, a prominent biotechnology company in China mentioned in the House and Senate proposals, is considered a “national champion” that receives government subsidies and preferential treatment. This creates a system where the lines between private and public, as well as civilian and military, are blurred.

Puglisi stated that this mechanism causes imbalances in the market and undermines the international standards of scientific research by utilizing scientists, academic institutions, and businesses to advance the agenda of the government.

BGI, which has stressed its private ownership, offers genetic testing kits and a popular prenatal screening test to detect Down syndrome and other conditions. U.S. lawmakers say they are concerned such data could end up in the hands of the Chinese government.

The Department of Defense has classified BGI as a Chinese company with ties to the military. Additionally, the Department of Commerce has placed BGI on a blacklist for human rights concerns, citing potential use of BGI technology in surveillance. BGI has denied these accusations.

The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology has expressed concerns about BGI, stating that the company is obligated to share data with the Chinese government, has collaborated with the Chinese military, and has received significant financial and logistical support from the Chinese state.

The commission stated that state subsidies have enabled BGI to provide genomic sequencing services at a very competitive cost, which has caught the attention of American researchers. It also stated that the genomic data, which is currently under the control of the Chinese government, holds significant value and has potential implications in terms of privacy, security, economy, and ethics.

BGI was not immediately available to provide a comment.

Source: voanews.com