Nicholas Weiss
A bipartisan investigation into Merck and AbbVie clinical trials in China turns on a stark statistical reversal: the United States share of global early stage drug development programs fell from 48 percent in 2015 to roughly 37 percent by 2024, while China's share climbed from 8 percent to over 32 percent over the same period. That shift now sits at the center of a national security inquiry led by the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.
At a Glance
- Republican Representative John Moolenaar's China Select Committee sent letters dated Monday to Merck and AbbVie demanding trial data by July 17.
- Investigators are focused on trial sites in Xinjiang and at Chinese military hospitals.
- China's share of global early stage drug trials rose from 8 percent in 2015 to over 32 percent in 2024, per the cited study.
- The U.S. share fell from 48 percent to about 37 percent over the same nine year span.
- Neither company is accused of illegal conduct; the letters cite exposure to ethical and security risk rather than proven wrongdoing.
What the Letters Actually Demand
The committee wants documentation covering due diligence procedures, data protection protocols, and informed consent standards at Merck and AbbVie trial sites operating inside China, with particular scrutiny on Xinjiang and military hospital locations. The July 17 deadline gives both companies roughly two and a half weeks to compile records that, in many cases, may span years of trial operations across multiple provinces and institutional partners.
Merck's response so far has been to point to existing global guidelines, stating that patient safety and ethical integrity remain priorities across its clinical research program. AbbVie has declined to comment publicly. Both postures are fairly standard for companies facing early stage congressional inquiry: acknowledge the framework, avoid substantive engagement with specifics until legal counsel has reviewed exposure.
The Xinjiang Dimension
The letters explicitly tie the investigation to what they describe as genocide targeting Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang. That framing matters because it invokes a policy architecture already in place: the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act of 2021. The statute does not mention clinical trials at all, but the committee is using it as an ethical benchmark, arguing that the same scrutiny applied to supply chains for goods should extend to human subject research conducted in the same region.
Lawmakers also allege that Chinese researchers have themselves documented failures in securing informed consent from trial participants. If substantiated, that would represent a direct violation of the ethical baseline underpinning international clinical trial standards, including the frameworks Merck cites in its own defense.
China's embassy in Washington pushed back hard, calling the committee's actions lacking in credibility and framing the inquiry as an attempt to politicize trade and technology issues. That response follows a familiar pattern in U.S. China regulatory friction: Beijing tends to characterize sector specific scrutiny, whether in semiconductors, biotech, or now clinical research, as protectionism dressed up as ethics.
Why China Became the Cheaper, Faster Option
The letters attribute China's trial volume surge to a combination of regulatory reform, state subsidies, and what they call, at best, questionable ethics. Whatever the moral framing, the economic logic is straightforward. Lower per patient trial costs, larger and more centralized patient populations, and faster regulatory turnaround times have made China an attractive site for early phase human drug trials, the stage where speed to data often determines which programs advance and which get shelved.
For multinational drugmakers running global pipelines, the calculus is rarely ideological. Trial sites get chosen based on enrollment speed, cost per patient, and regulatory predictability. China has been winning on most of those metrics for the better part of a decade, which explains the magnitude of the share shift documented in the study cited by lawmakers.
The Broader Biotech Security Context
This inquiry does not exist in isolation. The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology flagged the underlying concern in a December report, warning that China has built a vertically integrated biotechnology ecosystem positioned to challenge U.S. leadership in the sector. That report frames clinical trial dominance as one node in a larger system, alongside manufacturing capacity, genomic data collection, and downstream drug development infrastructure.
Seen against that backdrop, the Merck and AbbVie letters function less as an isolated accusation and more as a targeted probe into how deeply two major U.S. drugmakers are embedded in that ecosystem. The letters to AbbVie CEO Robert Michael and Merck CEO Robert Davis are careful to state there is no evidence of illegal activity or wrongdoing by either company. The stated concern is structural exposure, the risk inherent in operating trial infrastructure inside a jurisdiction where military hospitals and Xinjiang facilities are part of the available site network.
Comparing the Two Companies' Positions
| Factor | Merck | AbbVie |
|---|---|---|
| Public statement | Cites patient safety and adherence to global guidelines | Declined to comment |
| Deadline to respond | July 17 | July 17 |
| Accusation of wrongdoing | None alleged | None alleged |
| Focus areas cited | Xinjiang, military hospital trial sites | Xinjiang, military hospital trial sites |
Frequently Asked Questions
Are Merck and AbbVie accused of breaking the law?
No. The lawmakers' letters explicitly state there is no evidence that either company engaged in illegal activity or wrongdoing. The inquiry centers on risk exposure from operating clinical trials in China, not proven misconduct.
What is the deadline for the companies to respond?
Both Merck and AbbVie were asked to provide requested documentation, including due diligence and data protection details, by July 17.
How much has China's share of global drug trials grown?
According to the study cited in the lawmakers' letters, China's share of global early stage drug development programs rose from about 8 percent in 2015 to over 32 percent by 2024, while the U.S. share fell from roughly 48 percent to 37 percent over the same period.
Does the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act apply to clinical trials?
No, the 2021 law does not specifically address clinical trials. Lawmakers argue it reflects ethical best practices that should extend to human trial oversight in Xinjiang, but the statute itself covers supply chains rather than research consent standards.
What Happens Next
The July 17 deadline will be the first concrete test of how forthcoming Merck and AbbVie are willing to be. Given that the committee has framed this as a security and ethics review rather than a legal enforcement action, the companies' responses are likely to shape whether the inquiry escalates into subpoenas, public hearings, or broader industry wide disclosure requirements affecting other drugmakers with China based trial operations.
Alana Hill
