Nicholas Weiss
A bipartisan investigation into Merck and AbbVie's clinical trial operations in China has put a hard number on a question that has lingered over the pharmaceutical industry for years: how deeply are American drugmakers embedded in trial sites tied to the Chinese military and to Xinjiang, the region at the center of Beijing's campaign against Uyghur and other minority populations. The tallies, compiled by the House Select Committee on China, are specific enough to force a response.
At a Glance
- Merck has been linked to 224 clinical studies in China since 2005, including 31 in Xinjiang and 40 at military connected hospitals.
- AbbVie has been linked to more than 100 studies since 2007, including 17 in Xinjiang and 16 at military connected facilities.
- Rep. John Moolenaar's committee gave both companies until July 17 to detail vetting, data protection, and safety protocols.
- China's share of global early stage drug development rose from 8% in 2015 to more than 32% in 2024, while the U.S. share fell from 48% to about 37%.
- The Biosecure Act, signed into law last year, already restricts federal agency dealings with non U.S. biotech firms.
What the Numbers Show
Strip away the political framing and the underlying data tell a fairly stark story about exposure. Merck's 224 documented studies since 2005 represent two decades of steady clinical activity inside China, with roughly 14% of that total occurring in Xinjiang and about 18% at hospitals with military ties. AbbVie's smaller footprint, just over 100 studies since 2007, still shows a similar proportional pattern: 17% in Xinjiang, 16% at military linked centers. Those ratios matter more than the raw counts, because they suggest the exposure isn't incidental. It's baked into how both companies have structured trial recruitment in China over multiple product cycles.
The letters, dated Monday and addressed to AbbVie chief executive Robert Michael and Merck chief executive Robert Davis, request a full accounting of site vetting procedures, data protection protocols, and safety standards by July 17. Notably, the committee does not allege that either company broke any law. The language is calibrated: this is a request for disclosure, not an accusation of wrongdoing, though the underlying implication, that intellectual property developed in these trials could be exposed to Chinese military researchers, is left unambiguous.
Why Military Linked Hospitals Raise Flags
The committee's core concern is technology transfer risk rather than trial misconduct per se. Running biotech research at PRC military hospitals, the letters argue, creates a pathway for proprietary data and methods to move into military hands, a scenario distinct from the more commonly discussed risks around data privacy or informed consent. Xinjiang carries an additional layer of scrutiny given documented issues with obtaining informed consent from trial participants in the region, a point the committee explicitly tied to Beijing's treatment of Uyghur and other minority populations there.
Merck's public response leans on standard compliance language: patient safety and ethical integrity as stated priorities, adherence to global guidelines. AbbVie has not addressed the investigation directly. China's embassy in Washington pushed back hard, calling the committee's claims not credible and framing the inquiry as an attempt to politicize trade and technology matters. Neither response engages with the specific site counts the committee published, which leaves the raw numbers as the most concrete data point in the dispute so far.
The Bigger Shift in Drug Development Geography
The trial site counts sit inside a larger structural trend that gives the investigation more weight than a single compliance dispute. China's share of global early stage drug development jumped from 8% in 2015 to over 32% by 2024. Over the same nine year window, the U.S. share dropped from 48% to roughly 37%. That is an 11 point gain for China against an 11 point loss for the U.S., a nearly symmetric swing that points to a genuine reallocation of early pipeline activity rather than simple market growth diluting an American share.
| Metric | 2015 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| China share of early stage drug development | 8% | 32%+ |
| U.S. share of early stage drug development | 48% | ~37% |
Set against that backdrop, Merck's and AbbVie's China trial activity looks less like an outlier and more like an industry norm that regulators are only now scrutinizing at the site level. The Biosecure Act, signed into law last year, already restricts federal agencies from doing business with non U.S. biotech companies, an earlier signal that Washington views biotech supply chains and research partnerships with China as a national security category, not just a commercial one.
What's at Stake for Each Company
AbbVie's commercial position adds context to the timing. Its immunology franchise, led by Skyrizi and Rinvoq, has been carrying revenue growth as Humira, once its top seller, loses ground to biosimilar competitors. A prolonged compliance dispute over trial sourcing is an unwelcome distraction at a moment when the company is leaning on its newer pipeline to offset that erosion. Merck, meanwhile, faces the investigation with a much longer documented history in China, 224 studies over 20 years versus AbbVie's 100 plus over 18, giving investigators a deeper data set to probe if the inquiry escalates beyond the July 17 disclosure deadline.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly are lawmakers asking Merck and AbbVie to provide?
The committee wants details on how each company vets clinical trial locations in China, how it protects data generated at those sites, and what safety standards it applies, with a submission deadline of July 17.
Have Merck or AbbVie been accused of breaking the law?
No. The letters explicitly state that neither company is known to have violated any laws, though they raise concerns about ethical and national security risks tied to conducting trials in China.
Why is Xinjiang specifically mentioned in the investigation?
Xinjiang is identified in the letters as the center of Beijing's campaign against Uyghur and other ethnic and religious minorities, and the committee cites documented lapses in obtaining informed consent from trial participants in the region.
How does the Biosecure Act relate to this investigation?
The Biosecure Act, signed into law last year, restricts federal agencies from doing business with non U.S. biotechnology companies and reflects a broader U.S. government push to limit biotech ties with China, separate from but related to this trial specific inquiry.
Where This Goes Next
The July 17 deadline sets a near term checkpoint, but the more consequential question is whether this inquiry stays confined to disclosure requests or evolves into something that shapes how U.S. drugmakers structure clinical trials globally. Given the scale of the shift already visible in the early stage development data, China's rising share and the corresponding U.S. decline, any regulatory response here is likely to reverberate well beyond these two companies.
Alana Hill
