Inside the Biotech Race: Why Research Visibility Is the Next National Security Imperative

The release of the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB) report marks a defining moment for U.S. science and technology policy. As the commission warns, the U.S. is at a strategic crossroads. Biotechnology now sits at the intersection of national power: it fuels economic growth, underpins defense readiness, drives medical innovation, and forms the backbone of modern supply chains. Losing ground in biotechnology means losing leverage across all domains.

Yet despite decades of U.S. dominance, that leadership is eroding. Over the past five years, biotechnology research output has surged in China and India, remained flat in the United Kingdom and Germany, and grown only modestly in the U.S. In 2025, China surpassed the U.S. in biotechnology research output for the first time—a symbolic and strategic shift. 

A recent analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), reinforces the commission’s warnings and highlights that biotechnology is not merely a scientific pursuit, but a strategic determinant of how nations prevent disease, produce energy, manufacture materials, and defend themselves in the years ahead. 

This trend mirrors other technology domains. In artificial intelligence, for instance, China’s massive investment in research, patents, and talent allowed it to surpass the combined output of the U.S., UK, and EU by 2024. The same dynamics are now emerging in biotechnology. These trends underscore what the NSCEB calls an “urgent need for sustained, coordinated national investment.” 

From Insight to Investment  

Investment—in every sense of the word—is the common thread behind technological success. Whether through funding for fundamental or applied research, building testing and manufacturing facilities, accelerating commercialization, or strengthening talent development and retention, investment determines which nations advance and which stall. 

The U.S. is currently refining its list of Critical Technology Areas (CTAs) to guide strategic R&D funding. From both an innovation and supply-chain risk perspective, biotechnology must sit near the top of that list. Without it, the U.S. risks ceding leadership in a field that will define future national power—from health resilience to biodefense and advanced materials. 

Careful Collaboration

The NSCEB urges the U.S. to coordinate with “like-minded countries” on research. That recommendation is sound, but it must be balanced with the protection of intellectual property and research integrity. 

Collaboration is indispensable to scientific progress, yet not all partnerships carry equal risk. While international collaboration represents a small share of total U.S. biotechnology research, several Chinese institutions have become central nodes in the global research network, some linked to China’s Military-Civil Fusion strategy. These ties raise legitimate concerns about the potential diversion of open academic research toward defense applications. 

The solution is not to retreat from global engagement but to build systems that screen and vet partners based on established risk criteria. Strategic collaboration—with trusted and transparent institutions—will minimize exposure of sensitive U.S. biotechnology data while preserving the scientific cooperation that fuels innovation. 

Closing the Data Visibility Gap

The commission also highlights a critical shortfall: the U.S. has “failed to amass a large repository of biological data that could be leveraged by researchers.” This gap is not simply a technical issue—it is a strategic vulnerability. 

Identifying promising biotechnology innovations depends on combining multiple sources of information—grant funding, patent filings, research papers, and clinical trial results—into a unified perspective. Today, that process remains fragmented. Agencies and researchers spend valuable time piecing together insights manually, which slows discovery and limits the ability to run the AI models needed for complex analysis and forecasting. 

Balancing privacy, data security, and informed consent will always be essential in a free and open democracy. Equally important is the ability to responsibly aggregate and analyze biological data across trusted U.S. and allied institutions. Doing so will strengthen national decision-making, reduce duplication, and help identify where public investment yields the highest return. 

Bridging the Biotech Talent Divide

Another finding of the NSCEB report is the need for a more “bioliterate” federal workforce—one that understands biotechnology at the intersection of science, policy, and security. Data critical to this effort.  

Agencies cannot train a workforce without knowing precisely where the skills gaps are. This goes beyond counting how many biologists or Ph.D. holders the nation produces. It means understanding which individuals and departments possess hands-on expertise in areas such as AI-driven biology, synthetic biology, and automation. Mapping those capabilities allows agencies to focus training, recruitment, and reskilling on the areas of highest strategic need. 

Seeing the Global Research Landscape Clearly

Biotechnology will shape the future of health, defense, and economic competitiveness. To lead responsibly, the U.S. must combine strategic investment with evidence-based collaboration—grounded in data, transparency, and trust. 

The stakes could not be higher. As biotechnology converges with fields like AI and quantum computing, it will increasingly define the boundary between economic advantage and national vulnerability. Leadership in this domain is no longer optional—it is a national security imperative. 

To stay ahead, the U.S. must be able to see the global research landscape clearly—who is doing what, where, and with whom—and act on that insight swiftly. The NSCEB has provided a roadmap. Now federal and industry leaders need the commitment and coordination to execute on it.