U.S. trails China in race to utilize biotech on the battlefield

Axios

16-04-2025

A critical avenue of U.S.-China competition has slipped under the public's radar despite its potential outsize impacts on economies, militaries and weaponry: biotechnology.
Why it matters: Better body armor, dynamic camouflage, foods synthesized in trenches, super soldiers, landmine-detecting bacteria and sabotaged materials shipped to the enemy are all promises of this field.
And a new report concludes that Beijing is ascending to biotech dominance, at great risk to Washington.
Driving the news: The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology filed that report to Congress this month after two years of research and debate.
Commissioners include Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), also a member of the intelligence committee; Eric Schmidt, the former Google CEO; and Michelle Rozo, a vice president at In-Q-Tel and former principal director for biotechnology at the Pentagon.
Here's a taste of the report's many findings, recommendations and warnings:
China is sprinting ahead after prioritizing biotech 20 years ago. The U.S. must course correct in three years.
Washington should dedicate $15 billion minimum over the next five years to supercharge the sector.
Beijing's advancements are fueled by military-civil fusion. But the U.S. "should not try to out-China China; that is a losing strategy."
There is "every reason to believe" the Chinese Communist Party will "weaponize biotechnology." Drone warfare "will seem quaint" the day the People's Liberation Army debuts genetically enhanced troops.
Opportunities for greater collaboration already exist, namely through NATO's innovation accelerator, DIANA.
Congress should require the Defense Department to incorporate military-relevant biotech into wargaming and exercises.
What they're saying: U.S. leadership should consider biotech a distinct domain of warfare, according to Young, a Marine Corps veteran.
"Imagine if we could, in theater, biomanufacture shelf-stable blood, thereby seizing on that golden hour in which we need to provide emergency medical attention to warfighters who are under duress," he told Axios.
"Imagine a world in which we are able to develop new energetics through biological means, with far more thrust — power — to extend the range of our existing missile systems."
"That would, obviously, change all sorts of calculations of warfare."
Reality check: There's a lack of stateside industrial capacity. And moving from lab to market is an expensive ordeal, a red flag for increasingly risk-averse investors.
What we're watching: What makes it into the National Defense Authorization Act, a logical home for this report's suggestions.
The bottom line: "Just like the Industrial Age, just like the Information Age, this is the Biotechnology Age. Most people do not know that," Paul Arcangeli, a commissioner and former House Armed Services Committee staff director, said in an interview.