The new biotech cold war: Why Washington’s China crackdown should matter to India

Dipen Gogoi 

(gogoidipen3686@gmail.com)

When US President Ri-chard Nixon arrived in Beijing in 1972, he in-itiated a relationship that would transform the global economy. For decades, American businesses poured capital, technology and expertise into China, helping it rise from relative isolation to become the world’s manufacturing powerhouse. Today, however, Washington appears determined to roll back parts of that engagement.

A new bipartisan proposal in the United States to tighten scrutiny of investments and technology transfers involving Chinese biotechnology firms may seem like just another twist in the ongoing US-China rivalry. However, focusing solely on this issue would overlook the broader implications. What is unfolding is not merely a dispute over biotechnology; it is part of a larger effort to redraw the rules of globalisation.

The proposed Biotech Investment National Security Act (BINSA) would bring American investments, licensing agreements and joint ventures involving Chinese biotechnology companies under greater government scrutiny. Supporters argue that the United States can no longer afford to hand over critical technologies and expertise that could eventually strengthen a strategic competitor.

In many ways, biotechnology is becoming the latest battlefield in a rivalry that has already spilt over into semiconductors, artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing. The perception that economic cooperation guarantees political stability is rapidly diminishing.

China’s rise in biotechnology has certainly garnered global attention. With substantial state investments, top-tier research facilities, and a growing pharmaceutical sector, the country has established itself as a significant force in drug development, genomic research, and biotechnology innovation. Chinese firms are increasingly moving up the value chain, challenging established Western companies in areas that were once considered their exclusive domain.

For Washington, the issue is not simply about competition; it is about dependence. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the weaknesses in global supply chains. As countries rushed to secure medicines, vaccines, and medical equipment, many realised that relying too heavily on a single source could pose significant risks. What had once been considered efficient suddenly looked precarious.

The pandemic also ushered in a new vocabulary. Terms such as “friend-shoring”, “de-risking”, and “supply-chain resilience” quickly caught on among policymakers. Governments that had spent decades embracing global integration began investigating how to reduce reliance on potential rivals. This strategic rethink has now caught the biotechnology sector in its grasp.

Yet biotechnology is not just another industry. It occupies a pivotal position at the intersection of healthcare, economics, and national security. We expect advances in gene editing, synthetic biology, and personalised medicine to transform how societies tackle diseases, produce food, and manufacture essential products. Whoever gains the upper hand in these technologies will enjoy not only economic rewards but also significant geopolitical influence.

That is why Washington is no longer willing to take a back seat when it comes to protecting what it sees as critical technologies. Policymakers fear that unrestricted investment flows and technology transfers could strengthen competitors in sectors that may define the future balance of power.

However, there is a downside to this situation. Scientific progress has traditionally thrived on collaboration. Researchers, universities and companies often build breakthroughs by sharing ideas and expertise across borders. Excessive restrictions could slow innovation and drive up research costs. There is a genuine risk that geopolitical tensions could end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Another concern is the possibility of a divided scientific world. If countries continue to pull apart into competing technological blocs, global research networks may fragment. Separate standards, supply chains and innovation ecosystems could emerge, making it harder to tackle challenges that do not recognise national boundaries, from future pandemics to food security and climate-related health threats.

For India, the evolving landscape presents both opportunities and challenges. As the “pharmacy of the world”, India already plays a crucial role in supplying affordable medicines across the globe. At a time when multinational companies are seeking alternatives to concentrated supply chains, India has an opportunity to step up and strengthen its position in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.

But opportunities alone are not enough. India will need to double down on scientific research, higher education and innovation if it hopes to move up the value chain. In the race for technological leadership, low-cost manufacturing may open doors, but sustained innovation is what keeps them open.

The implications are relevant even for Assam. With its rich biodiversity, growing educational institutions and untapped research potential, the state has much to gain from developments in biotechnology. Whether in agriculture, healthcare or environmental conservation, scientific innovation could become an important driver of future growth.

The larger context is undeniable. Throughout history, nations have competed for land, resources and markets. Today, the contest is increasingly centred on technology, knowledge and innovation. Laboratories are becoming as strategically important as factories, while scientific expertise is emerging as a key source of national strength.

The twentieth century belonged to those who controlled oil fields, factories and trade routes. The twenty-first may well belong to those who control genes, data and cutting-edge technologies. As Washington and Beijing square off in this new arena, the rest of the world must decide how to navigate the shifting landscape.

One thing is clear: biotechnology is no longer confined to laboratories and pharmaceutical companies. It has become a high-stakes geopolitical game. As the world’s two largest powers compete over the technologies of tomorrow, the outcome will have far-reaching effects beyond Washington and Beijing, influencing economies, industries, and societies worldwide.