China’s Gene-Targeting of Americans

The BGI Research and Development Center in Hong Kong. (Song Bilong/The Epoch Times).

Commentary

On Jan. 25, members of Congress introduced a proposal called the BIOSECURE Act, which would ban the use of U.S. tax dollars for the utilization of genetics companies from China that collaborate with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

This is a good bill, but one must ask: How in the world have we allowed such a practice to continue to this day? Why does the executive branch of the U.S. government need a law for such a commonsense rule that it could have made policy long ago?

We should have had an all-of-government, if not all-of-society, effort since at least the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 to end reliance on China, especially companies linked to its military. We should most especially have limited the release of genetic data to Beijing.

As noted in the House announcement, but not in most of the bill’s mainstream media coverage, the proposed law is in part meant to stop the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from using U.S. genetic data for malign purposes, including genetic targeting of U.S. citizens with bioweapons.

“Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI) collects genetic data of Americans [and] uses it for research with the Chinese military,” Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) said in the bill’s announcement. Mr. Gallagher chairs the House Select Committee on the CCP. He and his Democrat co-chair introduced the House version of the bill.

“The CCP will undoubtedly use the genetic data collected by BGI to further its malign aggression, potentially even to develop a bioweapon used to target the American people,” Mr. Gallagher noted.

NBC News quoted Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), who co-chairs the  committee, as noting that the law would “drive BGI from the U.S. market.”

Mr. Gallagher told NBC of “the threat of bespoke bioweapons that could target either an individual or a class of individuals.”

“And for your [readers] who might think that that’s the stuff of science fiction or in the distant future, it’s not,” he said. “We know that’s ... a technology that the CCP would love to perfect.”

In 2023, BGI reportedly spent $420,000 on lobbying in the United States. This should be illegal for companies from adversary nations, especially those countries developing or arguably deploying genocidal capabilities against Americans. The CCP is not only developing genetic targeting of bioweapons but also weaponizing fentanyl as a diplomatic bargaining chip over the Taiwan issue. Fentanyl overdose has killed more than 250,000 Americans since 2018.

BGI’s prenatal test was reportedly developed in collaboration with the PLA and is used to collect genetic data globally. The U.S. National Counterintelligence and Security Center warned in 2021 that China has for years been able to access U.S. genomic data, including through illegal means.

Global markets have apparently taken note of the new bill. Stock values of Chinese companies mentioned by the bill sponsors, including WuXi AppTec, plummeted by as much as 32 percent the day after the announcement.

A U.S. law against government utilization of Chinese companies for genetic testing would be similar to laws against government purchases of Chinese drones or telecom services. These products have a legitimate use but mask “intelligence gathering for nefarious purposes,” as Bill Evanina noted to NBC about Huawei and BGI. Mr. Evanina is the former top U.S. counterintelligence official.

In 2020, the National Defense Authorization Act finally banned the use of Chinese drones by the Pentagon. It should have gone much further to ban the U.S. government’s reliance on any export from China, including genetic services.

Mr. Evanina noted that Beijing could use knowledge of the genetic deficiencies of Americans to blackmail individuals. He said the PLA has also sought genetic data to create super-soldiers, including, for example, the use of DNA from people in the Himalayas to engineer troops that can operate efficiently at high altitudes.

A similar bill to the one introduced on Jan. 25 banning the use of China’s genetic companies was introduced in the Senate by the chair of the Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.).

The bill is obviously necessary, and its bipartisan, bicameral co-sponsors are skillful heroes fighting the good fight inside the Beltway.

But, like the 2020 law, it is far too little, too late. We should not need new legislation for each government purchase from China that puts Americans at risk. This is a failed reactive defense rather than a proactive offense that aims at the adversary’s center of gravity. Such laws should apply beyond just U.S. appropriations to the U.S. public generally and with global effect.

Extraterritorial laws against the CCP are a big ask and apparently not currently politically feasible when it comes to genetic data loss. This is likely because CCP-linked corporations plow some of their profits into campaign donations and, as a result, have too much influence in U.S. politics. Any such influence from a genocidal and totalitarian entity such as the CCP, including when moderated through U.S. entities, should be banned.

The global nature of the CCP threat requires generalized global defenses, not whack-a-mole U.S. laws. If we only protect ourselves or limit our own purchases from China through much-needed greater tariffs, Beijing’s aggressive commerce will threaten America from elsewhere. Its cheap intermediate exports will empower other countries, including adversary states, to out-compete American manufacturers, for example.

We need more limits on CCP technology and higher tariffs on China’s exports. But, to be fully effective, these measures must be more creative, cutting edge, and global—including a global tax on China. Limited laws such as the most recent bill are just “steps in the right direction” that give the illusion of progress toward destinations that are unreachable through pedestrian means.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.