Nicolas Tilmans

@PeterKolchinsky But you'd say: "US will be slower+more expensive" If creative US cos have enough help getting started and enough incoming business, I suspect they'd get more efficient and the gap might close. No VC or investor wants to compete with Wuxi though. So we don't know US cos can.

@PeterKolchinsky I don't have perfect answers. It's a hard problem. Some ideas: 1. Add regulations to eliminate the back door 2. Create incentives to use US labs (min. spends, maybe fast track review) 3. Capex+Overhead incentives 4. Other ideas? With your expertise I'm sure you also have ideas.

Xiaomi makes phones & cars. Also drones. Xiaomi biotech gives China an edge solving the next pandemic. I'd rather we do it first. If we can't domestically innovate cancer treatments, we lose the muscles to stop the next pandemic. Biotech innovation is national security. 6/

@PeterKolchinsky But with no approved drugs at the time. Would you require US manufacturing at Phase 2? Or just on Phase 3 success? Could mitigate risk, I still think it's good we didn't have to ask the question. And if Moderna isn't a good example, then Paxlovid.

@ntilmans There are consequences of breaking patents. But just don’t pretend that we have no options if China shuts off access to a cancer cure. It’s not rare earth. You just copy it and make your own. Moderna not great example b/c its value was exactly in mass manufacturing.

More game theory: what if Moderna (RA Cap. investment) was Chinese in 2020? What's the game theory of breaking patents? Was RA ok breaking patents in 2020? (nope. kills innovation) If all discovery->phase 1/2 work is outsourced to China could you even leverage the patents? 3/

@PeterKolchinsky "As long as we could too" is doing a lot of work there. The entire disagreement is whether we will get worse at it.

@ntilmans Why wouldn’t you want China to solve the next pandemic as long as we could too? Moderna/Pfizer offered to sell their vaccines to China. China denied itself as a matter of pride. We should stay plugged into global R&D so we stay ahead. A ban would slow us down by raising costs.

@PeterKolchinsky If a pure ban doesn't get me what I want, help design other incentives to build lab teams here. You seem to disagree that's even a worthwhile objective. I think that long term you need labs to stay good at innovation. China's actions suggest it agrees! You don't.

@ntilmans Everyone learns from one another. We hire China to do what they already do well. This isn’t as hard to learn as you think. There’s patents, publications, and European collaborations. Just focus on whether a ban gets you what you want. Red team it. An R&D ban doesn’t work.

@PeterKolchinsky I'm skeptical that if functionally all lab work is done in China that we will maintain the ecosystem sustaining that innovation.

@PeterKolchinsky This is the disagreement: China becoming equivalent to US biotech won't affect our ability to conceive of drugs. You don't think we will, because NIH funds early innovation and that means we'll keep having strong US trained scientists to do that invention.

"But the ecosystem is still healthy! We're funding things in the US all the time!" Oh wait... Why is 42% of lab space in Boston vacant? Maybe all the innovators don't need labs? Where are they working? lexobserver.org/2026/03/19/wha… 8/

@PeterKolchinsky The same arguments applied to industries such as ship building. Or electronics manufacturing. Today we've forgotten how to build boats and drones it's a clear national security threat. Forgetting how to do med chem and cell bio will do the same for our ability to find cures.

@PeterKolchinsky Sure, textiles are a little different b/c workers don't usually transition into designers. But, in drug discovery, workers (PhDs then Scientists) become drug designers. I argue shrinking lab work in the US will kill the feedstock of drug designers. You seem to disagree though.

UMass Lowell used to be "Lowell Textile School". UMass Dartmouth used to be "New Bedford Textile School". Death of the textile industry in US killed nearly all textile programs in the US. Death of discovery will be the same for Bio/Chemistry, who will innovate then? 13/

@PeterKolchinsky Just saying they're investing more capital than we are and that risks losing our innovative edge. I think it's a unique and important edge to attract the best minds to the US. Maybe you disagree.

@ntilmans And do what? Cure ovarian cancer and then subjugate the US with it?

"And China saying Biotech is a "key area" doesn't mean it will subsidize to gain every advantage." Oh wait... science.org/content/articl… We still have an edge in basic research, but how long does that last? China can just flip the switch and catch up! 9/

@PeterKolchinsky In your paper you cite Chinese cars being unavailable here as tragic inefficiency. But vehicle production is a crucial national security industry. Keeping it is worth some inefficiency. You don't think biotech is such an industry, or at least not in the same way. I think it is.

@PeterKolchinsky "Efficiency" isn't worth trading a key innovative capability. From your paper I don't understand how we stay "really good at evaluating drug discovery" when subsidies and being local means that any Chinese Biotech moves (and learns) at 2x the speed of US Biotech.

COVID showed us the power of US-driven biotech innovation. Deep, creative science funded and shepherded in the US saved the world & boosted our standing. We must keep that edge. 14/

@SylvainGariel @jrkelly @PeterKolchinsky Bans could include transferring certain assays and know-how, though could be hard to police and already naturally dis-incentivized by existing IP concerns. Could also include bans on working with certain CCP associated companies.

@SylvainGariel @jrkelly @PeterKolchinsky It's a really hard problem, I don't have comprehensive or perfect ideas. Starting with discovery chemistry: - Subsidize capital+overhead expenditures (China does) - Incentivize US chemistry use Incentives could be things like priority review vouchers.

Deeply respect @PeterKolchinsky & worthwhile argument. Left unsaid: - 3 days ago we launched a China focused SPAC. - We definitely aren't losing US discovery->Phase 1/2 innovation. - But it's fine if we do, b/c we'll ignore patents if we need to! OK kinda said the last 2. 1/

Maybe today's regulations suck. Then make them better. And improve funding. But @jrkelly is right. Re-shore Biotech fully. Discovery through phase 3. That will take tons of domestic innovation. And yes, maybe that requires some targeted protectionism & subsidies. 16/end

@PeterKolchinsky is partly right: bad regulation makes for bad game theory consequences. But the right answer isn't: "Leave us alone except make US trials easier and on-shore some manufacturing". It's better regulation to keep innovation in the US. 15/

Who does the real work innovating in US Universities? PhD students+postdocs. Why do a basic science PhD if there are no discovery science jobs in the US? Nobody cares if you fund the training program if there are no good jobs to train for. 12/

If you keep outsourcing industrial discovery and early clinical work, can you keep the University innovation bedrock of American Biotech? If US Universities can't offer students a career path, who will identify the programs to in-license from China? 11/