The House China Select Committee is probing whether major U.S. drugmakers running clinical trials in China are unintentionally aiding the Chinese military and violating ethical norms, and lawmakers are demanding detailed disclosures about overseas practices from companies like Merck, AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Bristol Myers Squibb.
This inquiry centers on serious national security and human-rights concerns tied to where and how American pharmaceutical companies conduct research abroad. Lawmakers argue that clinical trials in regions like Xinjiang and at military-affiliated hospitals raise distinct ethical and security red flags. The effort is bipartisan and aims to force transparency about corporate due diligence and risk management.
Representative John Moolenaar is leading the push as chair of the committee, pressing companies to show how they protect intellectual property and ensure voluntary, informed consent. The concern is not idle. The committee’s letters point to hundreds of studies sponsored or collaborated on by U.S. firms in China, including trials at military medical centers and in Xinjiang. Operating there complicates the line between commercial research and potential tech transfer to an adversary.
https://x.com/ChinaSelect/status/2071983348176626148
At issue are two basic, urgent questions: Are trial participants truly participating voluntarily, and could military-linked institutions be siphoning American biotech know-how? The Chinese Communist Party’s documented abuses in Xinjiang and its close ties between civilian and military research institutions make those questions unavoidable. For Congress, the precautionary principle applies—companies must prove they are not exposing U.S. interests or vulnerable populations to harm.
Select Committee Chairman @RepMoolenaar sent a letter to @abbvie, which conducted clinical trials at Chinese military hospitals and in Xinjiang, the epicenter of the CCP’s genocide against Uyghurs.
Our investigation requests information on the company’s policies and due diligence efforts for operating at these locations. American companies cannot turn a blind eye to what is happening in China.
Click here for more information.
The committee’s letters say Merck has been involved in more than 200 clinical studies in China since 2005 and that AbbVie has sponsored over 100 since 2007. Those numbers include trials listed in Xinjiang and at facilities affiliated with China’s military. The raw scale of engagement, paired with weak protections for informed consent in some regions, creates a risky mix that demands congressional scrutiny.
Congress is particularly pointed about ethical safeguards and informed consent. The committee highlights that China’s clinical trial enrollment can run far faster than in the U.S., which it links to weaker ethical oversight and potential coercion. If recruitment is accelerated because oversight is lax, we face both an ethical problem and a security vulnerability where American biotech could be accessed without proper controls.
There are also strategic concerns beyond ethics. Conducting trials in military hospitals could allow the People’s Liberation Army to observe, absorb, or even appropriate American biotech advances. The committee’s language is blunt: research at PRC military hospitals could put U.S. biotechnology intellectual property at risk of transfer. That possibility should set off alarm bells for any company that values its patents, trade secrets, and national allegiance.
The letters to AbbVie CEO Robert Michael and Merck CEO Robert Davis say that “while there is no evidence” that either company “has engaged in illegal activity or wrongdoing, conducting clinical trials in China… exposes American companies to ethical and security risks.”
The committee said New Jersey-based Merck has sponsored or collaborated on 224 clinical studies in China since 2005, including at least 31 trials in Xinjiang and 40 at medical centers and hospitals affiliated with China’s military.
It said Illinois-based AbbVie has sponsored or collaborated on more than 100 clinical studies in China since 2007, including at least 17 sites in Xinjiang and 16 at military centers.
“Conducting this research at PRC military hospitals puts the cutting-edge, biotechnology intellectual property of American companies at potential risk of being transferred to the Chinese military,” the letters said.
Given the geopolitical stakes, the committee is asking for clear policies from companies: how they screen trial sites, verify voluntary participation, and guard intellectual property. For Republican lawmakers and national-security hawks, this is a straightforward demand—American firms must not outsource risk. The alternatives are simple: tighten oversight, move sensitive work to trusted partners, or stop working in suspect locations.
Public trust in pharmaceutical research depends on ethical rigor and secure handling of innovations that can save lives while strengthening national defense. When those two pillars are under question, Congress has the right to press for answers and for companies to prove they are behaving responsibly. This investigation is a test of whether industry will prioritize American security and human dignity when operating overseas.
Add comment