Cross-Strait Biotech Industry Competition and Cooperation: From Competition to Co-building Asia's Innovation Ecosystem

   Looking back from 2016 to 2025, the global life sciences development has ushered in the most paradigmically pivotal decade.  I will highlight several important breakthroughs in biotech and healthcare, including the rise of immuno-oncology, commercialization of regenerative medicine, advances in mRNA technology, and generative AI empowering drug development. These four waves have reshaped the rules of new drug development and transformed the industry 。 Given this historic opportunity, the biotech and pharmaceutical industries across the strait are standing at a structural critical juncture. They must shift from repeated competition, targeted targets, and vicious price wars to how to complement each other's advantages, and consider how to build a globally competitive Asian innovation ecosystem during the golden window of the decade from 2025 to 2035.

To assess the true strength of new drug development across the strait, I believe it is necessary to observe from three key dimensions. In terms of patent quality, China benefits from national-level new drug development projects, ranking second globally in patent applications in monoclonal antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates (ADC), and CAR-T cell therapy, and has formed the world's second-largest ADC R&D cluster. Its core industry features are speed and scale; Under the leadership of Academia Sinica, Taiwan is pursuing a small, refined, in-depth, and precise approach. In areas such as protein engineering, stable expression systems, cancer signaling pathways, and small molecule kinase inhibitors, Taiwan maintains high originality and academic citation rates, which is something Taiwan is very proud of. Regarding talent, China has three advantages: the return of high-end overseas talent, the vast dividend of clinical research engineers, and large-scale transformation; Taiwan, on the other hand, excels at a high density of physicians and scientists and deep international connections, with clinical trial data being highly reliable. The two form a precise gear and a massive dynamic system for efficient engagement. Finally, in terms of policy governance, since joining ICH in 2017, mainland China has promoted pharmaceutical reforms, established green approval channels and a national medical insurance negotiation system, and accelerated the commercialization of innovative drugs in China and globally; Since 2008, Taiwan has been synchronized with ICH standards, with TFDA reviews highly consistent with FDA reviews. Through the Biotech and Pharmaceutical Industry Development Act, tax incentives are extended until 2031, making Taiwan the most trusted regulatory compliance base in Asia.

If the two sides can demonstrate synergistic potential in three major areas, For example, in ADCs and multispecific antibodies, China leads in Linker and Payload technologies as well as large-scale clinical trial capabilities, with China accounting for 70% of the world's active ADC companies and products; Taiwan has unique features in stable expression systems and antigen screening, and cross-strait integration can greatly enhance drug stability and safety. There is also the cell and gene therapy (CGT) field, where mainland China accounts for about 47% to 66% of global clinical cases. Taiwan holds international advantages in manufacturing automation control and QC/QA, and if cooperative, it could establish Asia's first CGT production quality standard system. In terms of AI drug discovery and digital healthcare, although Mainland China possesses the world's largest medical big data, Taiwan possesses world-leading ICT capabilities and AI chip design capabilities. Through algorithm + data integration, cross-strait collaboration is seen as a key pathway to surpass the R&D systems of Europe and America.

Looking ahead, I believe both sides must make choices among three paths: first, continue homogeneous competition. Take PD-1 inhibitors as an example—more than ten products have already been launched in mainland China, leading to severe market competition and shortening the lifecycle for new products; Second, maintaining fragmented cooperation in the CRO/CDMO sector will lack overall strategic consistency; Third, using 'Asian-specific diseases' as a breakthrough point, jointly defining drug development standards, establishing a circulation system from R&D to clinical to market, and jointly striving for global pricing power—this is the only path for both sides to occupy the commanding heights of the global biomedical landscape. I personally support the third path.

To implement this, I put forward six concrete suggestions, including establishing a cross-strait biomedical data mutual recognition zone, prioritizing the creation of green channels for rare diseases and orphan drugs; Establishing a cross-strait biomedical accelerator fund to fill the gap in early-stage R&D investment; Established the Asian Regulatory Coordination Group to initiate dialogues on CGT and AI medical review standards; Forming a CDMO Supply Chain Resilience Alliance to integrate mainland China's production capacity with Taiwan's advanced processes; Strengthen the Biomedical Young Talent Pilot Program to cultivate at least 500 high-end talents with cross-strait perspectives each year; and to promote the modernization and internationalization of Chinese medicine, integrating Taiwan's standardized technologies with mainland Chinese medicinal resources.

From the practical perspective of past industry collaborations, it has been proven that suitable business cooperation models will have a "1+1>2" synergy effect: First, I believe it can be adoptedThe "relay run" licensing model allows Taiwan to complete early-stage compound discovery and proof of concept, then authorizes mainland Chinese pharmaceutical companies to conduct multi-regional Phase III clinical trials, shortening the R&D cycle from 12 years to 8 years; The second is the CDMO technology export model, combining large-scale production in China with refined technology in Taiwan to create dual advantages in cost and quality; Third, strengthen the Southeast Asia market access alliance to jointly capture this potential market, estimated to have a population of over 700 million and a market size of 50 billion USD.

I also draw on the successful experiences of Japanese pharmaceutical companies, such as Daiichi Sankyo achieving over $6 billion in milestone funding through ADC technology licensing, Takeda investing in rare diseases through the acquisition of Shire, and Astellas partnering with Pfizer to enter the global market. All these prove that true competitors are never in nearby markets, but in global markets. Looking ahead to the next decade, Taiwan's sophistication and depth must meet the breadth and height of the mainland, so that we can jointly advance institutional guarantees, collaborative projects, and basic research at the policy, industry, and academic levels. Both sides will have the opportunity to join hands and lead Asian biomedical innovation toward a complementary, win-win, and advanced golden decade for Asia.