Rogers is the “data wrangler” at BillTrack50. He previously worked on policy in several government departments.
This month IssueVoter and BillTrack50 take a look at the BIOSECURE Act, a significant escalation in efforts to restrict Chinese influence in America's biotechnology sector.
The bipartisan legislation, passed by the House of Representatives in September and spearheaded by Reps. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), aims to protect American patient data and prevent federal funds from flowing to biotechnology companies deemed to pose national security risks.
Key Provisions
At its core, the BIOSECURE Act seeks to create a firewall between federal agencies and certain biotechnology companies. Under the legislation, federal agencies would be barred from contracting with designated "biotechnology companies of concern" or providing grants and loans to entities that use their services.
This prohibition extends to organizations that maintain contracts with these companies, creating a ripple effect throughout the biotechnology supply chain.
The bill takes direct aim at five Chinese companies: BGI, MGI, Complete Genomics, WuXi AppTec,and WuXi Biologics. Beyond these specific designations, it establishes a framework for identifying additional companies as security risks, particularly those controlled by "foreign adversaries" including China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and Cuba.
Weaponizing Our Genome
Supporters of the BIOSECURE Act, with Wenstrup at the forefront, paint a concerning picture of vulnerable national security and compromised patient privacy.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
As Krishnamoorthi dramatically frames the issue: "As Americans have their blood drawn or take other medical tests each day, few have any idea that their personal genetic information could be going to biotech companies controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and other adversaries that would weaponize our own genomes against us."
The military connections between Chinese biotech firms and the People's Liberation Army have raised additional red flags. These relationships reportedly extend beyond mere collaboration to include joint research projects and shared genetic collection sites. The fact that WuXi AppTec derives over 60 percent of its revenue from the U.S. market has intensified concerns about American dependency on potentially compromised supply chains.
Perhaps most alarming to supporters is China's legal framework requiring companies to share data with the government upon request. This mandate creates a direct pipeline for sensitive genetic information about American citizens to flow into the hands of Chinese authorities.
Opposition and Concerns
Yet the legislation has drawn significant criticism, even from unexpected quarters. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), known for his tough stance on China, has emerged as a prominent critic. In his forceful opposition to the bill, McGovern argues: "Naming specific companies will create a 'whack-a-mole' situation where entities can change their name and reincorporate to evade sanctions. ... [I]t's totally wrong to call out specific companies without any formal investigation or interagency process —that might be how they do things in the PRC, but this is the United States of America where we ought to have a thorough, independent investigation."
Company Responses
Health care technology executives have added their voices to the chorus of concern. At the Clinical Trial Supply West Coast 2024 conference, Umar Hayat of Gladius Therapeutics offered a stark warning: "This seems more like politics rather than about a security threat. ... [I]f you want to play politics, play politics in other industries like automotive, electronics or telecommunications. Don't play politics in health care where so many people are in dire need. Let science evolve and advance — wherever it comes from."
BGI has mounted a vigorous defense against the allegations, emphasizing that it maintains no direct patient services in the United States and therefore has no access to Americans' personal data. The company has clarified that its Covid-19 PCR testing analyzes only viral RNA, not patient DNA, and stressed its status as a privately owned entity independent from Chinese government control. BGI likens its gene bank operations to those of U.S. national laboratories, suggesting that fears about its activities may be overblown.
Broader Implications
The BIOSECURE Act represents more than a simple regulatory change; it signals a fundamental shift in how the United States approaches biotechnology in the context of national security. This transformation raises complex questions about the future of international scientific collaboration at a time when global cooperation has proven crucial for addressing health challenges.
The legislation could trigger a significant reorganization of pharmaceutical supply chains, with countries like Ireland and India potentially emerging as alternative manufacturing locations. However, this restructuring comes with its own set of challenges and uncertainties.
Innovation in the biotechnology sector could face headwinds as restrictions on collaboration with Chinese firms affect the development pipeline for new treatments. The legislation also adds another layer of complexity to U.S.-China relations, potentially complicating ongoing dialogue in other areas.
Looking Ahead
As the BIOSECURE Act moves to the Senate with strong bipartisan support, its passage could mark a watershed moment in U.S. biotechnology policy. Policymakers face the delicate task of balancing legitimate national security concerns with the benefits of international scientific collaboration and market competition.
The debate over this legislation reflects deeper questions facing the biotechnology sector about the relationship between national security and scientific progress. How nations protect sensitive genetic data while maintaining scientific openness, and the role of national security considerations in health care innovation, will likely shape the future of global biotechnology development for years to come.
The answers to these questions will determine not just the future of U.S.-China relations in biotechnology, but the pace and direction of medical innovation in an increasingly interconnected world.
