If there was one point of consensus, it was that the old picture of China as a low-cost generics and manufacturing base is out of date. The conversation that followed was less about whether to engage, and more about how, where and on what terms.
A different kind of competitor
Participants described China as a country that has absorbed Western drug development practice and now executes it faster than most. Chinese teams can turn a new molecule around in days, run trials at pace and re-analyse data overnight when a Western team would take weeks. Licensing deals have grown from modest upfront payments into multi-asset, multibillion-dollar collaborations, and entire companies are now being built around assets discovered in China.
For a biotech, the pull is obvious. As one attendee put it, the choice is often “do or die”: reach the clinic before the runway ends, or don’t. Getting to first patient dosed sooner is a powerful story for investors in a difficult funding climate.
Regulators were seen as evolving to this new reality as well. A former regulator at the table argued that agencies once wedded to bridging studies are becoming more receptive, and that Chinese sponsors have learned what Western regulators expect. Others were more cautious. Biology differs between populations, regional assets are not automatically global ones, and FDA scepticism towards Chinese-generated data has not fully disappeared. One CEO described repeating a China-based programme at three times the cost, a reminder that “faster and cheaper” can sometimes prove to be neither.
Speed with strings attached
Intellectual property was the first concern raised. For some, the requirement that Chinese companies may have to share data with the government is a tipping point in deciding whether a relationship goes ahead or not. Small companies, which lack the cyber and legal defences of larger groups, feel this most acutely.
Data restrictions create practical friction too. One attendee explained that Chinese patients often have to be excluded from AI-driven analyses because of Chinese data-sharing rules, raising the question of what a global trial gains from including them. Others said sponsors struggle to see inside operations in China, and must rely on local teams or CROs to deliver on terms they do not entirely control.
Compartmentalise, don’t commit
The pragmatic answer from several experienced CMC and development leaders was to split the work. Use China where it is strongest, in early chemistry, rapid in vitro and non-human primate studies and early toxicology. Keep drug product close to home and return to GMP manufacture in the UK before starting trials.
There was strong agreement that a Chinese-only CDMO, without a tech-transfer route to a UK, European or US site, is a step too far for most. Reputation and word of mouth carry great weight. For a small company, a failed GMP batch or a repeated toxicology study is not a setback but a threat to survival.
Why can’t we move as fast?
The most reflective part of the evening turned the question around. If China is quicker, why? Participants pointed to the sheer scale of scientific talent, lighter process burdens and a political system that treats the sector as a national priority. One attendee noted that, by contrast, large Western organisations run on thousands of SOPs, and some companies still apply start-up-era policies once they reach commercial scale.
The UK’s own problems were laid out frankly. Venture capital is scarce, and many founders face a catch-22 of being told to come back when they are further along. Strong academic science is not translating into companies, with talent leaving for the US. Slow trial recruitment, and falling UK launch priority under pricing pressure, compound the problem. One cell therapy founder described hitting a ceiling at 300 batches against a target of 2,000, because a manufacturing process locked in with regulators, and in a handful of single-source suppliers, left no room to scale.
Several attendees were uneasy that the default response to these problems is simply to go to China. As one said, the UK is home, and the shortcomings deserve to be addressed rather than outsourced.
Partners, not vendors
The conversation closed on the relationship between sponsors and their CDMOs and CROs. Small companies cannot afford to babysit suppliers, yet many feel suppliers promise the world at the proposal stage and then deliver something different once the contract is signed. “Every CDMO is perfect until the world starts” drew knowing laughter.
What sponsors want is what one called “psychological commitment”: a partner who cares about quality as much as they do, brings ideas rather than waiting to be told what to do, and feels the pain of a missed timeline. Several argued the word “vendor” should be retired. Milestone-based payment and risk-sharing models were welcomed in principle, though CDMO representatives were candid that they have limits when they too are running today’s operations on today’s money. Sponsors, in turn, admitted they often under-invest in due diligence because the board wants an answer yesterday.
A question of strengths
Rather than a race the UK must win or lose, many saw an exchange. One CDMO leader described how a Chinese-owned site in the UK was valued for its Western pharma experience, with capabilities such as high-throughput experimentation flowing in both directions. The consensus was that the UK should play to its strengths in deep scientific expertise, late-stage clinical development, regulatory credibility and specialist manufacturing, while pressing government for the funding and urgency that competitors take for granted.
As one attendee summed up, the aim should be exchange rather than “…let’s just do it in China.” In a sector defined by tight money and tighter timelines, honest collaboration, with eyes open on risk, may be the best strategy available.
