Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.) is making a case for a more explicitly pro-biotech policy agenda in Washington, arguing that lawmakers should strengthen the U.S. industry’s research base instead of leaning on protectionist measures against China.
Speaking at the STAT Summit in Boston, Auchincloss said China is going to be “excellent,” but argued the U.S. can still be better if Congress focuses on domestic conditions for innovation. That puts him at odds with a bipartisan current in Washington that has favored tougher protections against China as its biotechnology sector gains on the U.S.
The Policy Approach
Auchincloss said he plans to introduce a bill modeled on the Australian government’s approach to clinical development. He pointed in particular to a system that has sped up the clinical trial regime in part by allowing early-phase trials to bypass pre-approval evaluation by the national regulator.
His point was not that the U.S. can match China on cost. He said it will never be as cheap to conduct early-stage trials in the U.S. as it is in China, but it should be as fast. That framing matters because it shifts the competitiveness debate from trying to neutralize China’s cost advantage to improving timelines in an area where Congress may have more leverage.
Auchincloss also said he is interested in creating small business grants, cracking down on pharmacy benefit manager business practices and reforming the 340B hospital drug discount program. Taken together, that agenda reads less like a single China bill than an attempt to improve the operating environment around biotech development and commercialization.
Science Governance As An Industry Issue
Auchincloss tied biotech competitiveness to how Washington handles science itself. He criticized Russ Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, saying Vought considers science a “blue state subsidy.” He also pointed to the OMB proposal to empower the White House to override peer reviewers’ recommendations, terminate grants at will and exercise more latitude over what kinds of research federal agencies support.
His argument was that biomedical leadership depends on “high, clear, transparent standards paired with the world’s best talent getting funded to pursue curiosity-driven research.” In that view, politicizing grant decisions is not a side issue; it directly weakens the U.S. case for remaining the preferred home for biotech research.
Auchincloss also criticized the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher program, saying it politicizes decisions that should be guided by transparent, well thought-out standards. He cited former FDA Commissioner Marty Makary’s award of vouchers to psychedelics after podcaster Joe Rogan texted President Trump about research around ibogaine.
The signal for industry is that policy support for biotech may increasingly split into two camps: one centered on barriers against China, and another centered on speeding trials, protecting funding norms and making the U.S. more attractive for research. Auchincloss is clearly arguing for the second path, and for companies, that distinction matters because it affects where reform would actually change development economics.
