Behind China’s biotech surge lies an experiment in industrial design: top-down planning meets bottom-up competition. The result is a network of 200-plus biotech hubs, an ecosystem both orchestrated and ferociously self-driven.
China’s life science industry is scaling fast on the back of ambitious policy support, deep capital, and maturing R&D infrastructure. Biotech hubs are seen as the system’s engines, aggregating talent, facilities, and funding. The China National Center for Biotechnology Development reports that more than 200 biotech parks nationwide are clocking annual business-revenue growth above 28%, powered by a potent mix of state funding and fierce entrepreneurial competition. These clusters are also integral to China’s “14th Five-Year Plan” and 2035 vision.
Yet, aside from those hubs in Shanghai and Beijing, few outside China seem aware of the range and scale of China's biotech hub ecosystem. Below, we map China’s leading biotech hubs, unpack the alchemy that drives them, and examine how the country’s model compares to its Western counterparts.
The Chinese Biotech Hubs You Should Know
Beijing – Zhongguancun Life Science Park (ZLSP)
Application Focus: AI-driven drug discovery, cell & gene therapy
Zhongguancun Life Science Park in Changping’s “Life Valley” stands at the crossroads of biology and big data. Home to more than 600 companies, including BeiGene, InnoCare Pharma, and Edigene, it sits inside the Beijing Free Trade Zone and the Future Science City supported by the 'Changping Mother Fund', which has invested more than ¥25 billion (≈ US $4 billion) in 64 healthcare projects since 2017. Recently, a 'Life Valley Health Industry Investment Fund' and two synthetic biology-focused funds were launched to further accelerate biotech commercialization in the area.
With the city’s powerful research ecosystem and surging AI sector, Zhongguancun is fast becoming China’s nerve center for algorithmic drug discovery. The rise of AI heavyweights such as DeepSeek, reflects the city’s growing strength in applying foundation models to life sciences, from molecular prediction to automated experiment design.
In 2025, AstraZeneca announced a US $2.5 billion investment in new AI-powered R&D labs here, underscoring how Beijing’s combination of policy, data infrastructure, and computational science is shaping the next era of biotech innovation.
Zhongguancun blends state scaffolding with commercial partnership, a perfect snapshot of Beijing’s evolving role as China’s innovation brain.
Shanghai – Zhangjiang Pharma Valley
Application Focus: Innovative biopharma, CRO/CDMO services
Founded in 1992, Zhangjiang Pharma Valley, Shanghai’s flagship cluster, pairs multinationals such as Pfizer, Roche, and Novartis with local champions and a full supply chain (CRO/CDMO through commercial). Policy continues to favor advanced modalities, with Pudong’s biopharma innovation regulations explicitly backing cell and gene development and industrialization.
New projects, like the ¥8 billion (≈ US $1.1 billion) “Zhangjiang Road” life sciences complex focused on antibody and cell/gene R&D, will further extend capacity.
If you’re looking for critical mass, industrial maturity and strong international biopharma networks, Zhangjiang is the epicenter.
Shenzhen – Pingshan National Biopharma Base
Application Focus: Medtech, precision medicine, medical devices
Pingshan District, once a factory belt, is increasingly seen as a blueprint for integrated urban planning, designed to merge technology, industry, and livability into one modern ecosystem. The district’s economy hums with biopharmaceuticals, new energy, next-generation IT, and intelligent equipment, with BYD headquartered here and Tencent a powerful regional presence.
At its center lies the Pingshan National Biopharma Base, the Greater Bay Area’s key life-science hub, established in 2005–2006 and now home to more than 27 national high-tech enterprises, 60+ medical-device firms, and 20 pharmaceutical companies.
A ¥5 billion (≈ US $700 million) government-backed biopharma fund supports local R&D and drug scaling, alongside clinical-trial incentives worth up to ¥1 million / ¥3 million / ¥7 million (≈ US $140 k / 420 k / 980 k) for Phases I, II, and III respectively. Officials also highlight a suite of talent housing subsidies, a practical policy designed to attract and retain scientific staff in one of China’s most expensive cities.
As one park representative put it, the hub’s mission is to “provide growth space for Shenzhen’s small and medium-sized biopharmaceutical enterprises” while ensuring that researchers and founders can realistically live and work nearby.
In our view, that blend of policy pragmatism and entrepreneurial energy is what sets Pingshan apart. The district’s development model, state scaffolding paired with fast-moving private enterprise, mirrors Shenzhen’s broader dynamic.
Suzhou – BioBAY
Application Focus: Biologics, immunotherapy, manufacturing scale-up
A short train ride from Shanghai, Suzhou’s BioBAY has grown into one of China’s most mature and investor-savvy biotech parks. Opened in 2007, it commands over ¥100 billion (≈ US $14 billion) in guiding funds supporting innovative pharma, immunotherapies, diagnostics, and devices with further ambitious growth plans for the future.
BioBAY thrives on vertical integration, bringing R&D, clinical trials, and production under one roof. One of the park’s most famous residents, Innovent Biologics, headquartered in Suzhou, has become a global symbol of Chinese biologics strength. For companies seeking scalability and export readiness, Suzhou’s formula is simple: invent, build, ship.
Chengdu – Tianfu International Bio-Town
Application Focus: Cell & gene therapy, modernization of traditional Chinese medicine
In western China, Tianfu International Bio-Town embodies Chengdu’s ambition to become the country’s “third biopharma pole.” Established in 2016, it hosts more than 400 projects with total investments exceeding ¥120 billion (≈ US $17 billion), supported by the Rongchuang Pioneer Fund (¥20 billion ≈ US $2.8 billion).
The focus is predominantly cell and gene therapy, precision medicine, and the modernization of traditional Chinese medicine. Tianfu’s advantage is cost and openness, and it positions itself as a rising western alternative to the coastal biotech hub giants.
Guangzhou – International Bio Island
Application Focus: Stem cell & antibody R&D, global collaboration
Approved in 2000 and operational since 2011, Guangzhou International Bio Island is a 1.83 km² island campus in the Pearl River, which markets itself as southern China’s bridge to the world. Over ¥10 billion (≈ US $1.4 billion) in government investment has built infrastructure and public R&D platforms, drawing in 500+ biomed companies and ~40 research institutes, as well as attracting international partners such as Astra Zeneca, Danaher and Merck.
Focused on stem cell research and antibody drug development, the island is also a testing ground for CRO/CDMO partnerships and international collaboration, a place where East meets West under one regulatory roof.
Hangzhou – Biotech Valley
Application Focus: Integrated “drug + device + intelligent manufacturing”
The rising star in eastern China, Hangzhou Biotech Valley sits at the core of the city’s “One Core, Four Parks” life-science strategy. Founded in 2021 within the Hangzhou Aviation Economic Zone, it focuses on innovative drugs, cell and gene therapies, synthetic biology, CXO services, and intelligent manufacturing.
With 31 key projects and total investments of ¥14.1 billion (≈ US $2 billion), the valley positions itself as a future-forward ecosystem fusing drug discovery, devices, and digital production into one symbiotic chain.
Analysis: East and West - Diverging Blueprints for Biotech
The rise of China’s biotech hubs follows a pattern both paradoxical and powerful. The government provides the infrastructure, zoning, and subsidies, but once established, companies are largely left to their own devices in a ruthless, survival-of-the-fittest landscape.
Entrepreneurship, Not Academia
Entrepreneurship, not academia, is the most powerful force driving China’s biotech surge. Unlike in Europe or the U.S., where university spinouts often seed innovation, the university-to-start-up pipeline in China is thinner. Universities tend to provide the network rather than the launchpad. It’s not uncommon to find CEOs in overlapping fields who all graduated from the same institution. However, any enduring legacy tie from company back to campus is rare; the intellectual lineage runs through classmates, not laboratories.
Regional Specialisation
Though China counts hundreds of biotech hubs, local governments have proven adept at consolidating funding and infrastructure around key geographic and thematic areas. We found no evidence of coordination between the large regional hubs in defining research priorities. But, with biopharma and precision medicine being partial exceptions, a de facto division of specialization has emerged, with each region honing its own niche.
The European Perspective
Europe, meanwhile, faces the inverse challenge: too much fragmentation, too little cohesion. Yet biotech leaders across the continent are clear-eyed about both the problem and the path forward. There is broad recognition that scale, coordination, and sustained funding are essential if Europe is to compete with China, and the United States.
“Activities in Europe are very spread across many places,” says Professor Jens Nielsen, CEO of Denmark’s BioInnovation Institute. “That results in no critical mass in competences for drug development and connections to investors and industry. Early-stage financing is a challenge - it prevents many scientists from taking the jump and starting companies based on their innovations.”
He stresses that progress is underway:
“There is an increased focus from the universities in spinning out more start-ups based on IP generated at universities”. Nielsen adds, at the BioInnovation Institute the factors that have proven most effective in supporting growth and innovation “is a combination of capital and support for founders of early-stage companies in developing a solid business plan.”
Jessica Martinsson, Director General of SwedenBIO, echoes that optimism while acknowledging Europe's structural challenge.
“European life-science clusters suffer from fragmentation,” she says. “The benefits of a cluster are directly related to its size, and few European hubs are big enough to compete with American—or emerging Chinese—clusters.”
Still, Martinsson points to Sweden’s collaborative model as proof that progress is possible:
“Sweden has a good track record of creating political consensus for the development of clusters. Public agencies like Vinnova, the Swedish innovation agency, local authorities and private actors like the Wallenberg Foundation and major companies, have shown a capacity for cooperation to establish and develop clusters. ”
She also sees promising signs of continental alignment:
“There are indications that cross-border cluster collaboration across Europe is on the rise: networks of SMEs, academia, hospitals and industry working via cluster consortia.”
Adding a Central European perspective, Ingrid Kelly Spillman, Partner at xista science ventures, underlines how fragmentation and funding gaps play out in younger ecosystems such as Austria’s.
“Our local ecosystem is small yet far too fragmented and localized, with competing stakeholders,” Kelly explains. “We are also lacking biotech venture funding—currently XISTA Science Ventures is the only established biotech VC operating out of Austria.”
Still, she shares Martinsson’s sense of momentum:
“Generous government support has helped early-stage companies get started,” she notes. “And universities are now taking a more active role in nurturing biotech entrepreneurs, moving beyond simply signing licence agreements.”
Kelly, too, points to a growing spirit of regional collaboration:
“Across Europe, we’re seeing increased cross-border cooperation and new EU funding streams,” she says. “...We need to keep thinking beyond borders.”
Together, Nielsen, Martinsson, and Kelly represent a common European refrain: the problem isn’t innovation, it’s integration. The continent’s science and talent are world-class, but political will and capital coordination must catch up to unlock their full potential.
Across the Atlantic, the United States continues to dominate by density and dollars. Its hubs -Boston’s Kendall Square and San Francisco’s Mission Bay- thrive on deep venture pools and proximity to elite universities.
Conclusion
China’s model is defined by top-down initiation followed by bottom-up survival. Its biotech hubs are meticulously planned yet brutally competitive, producing a Darwinian ecosystem where only the most agile innovators endure. The state builds the stage, but it’s the entrepreneurs who keep the lights on.
That tension, between orchestration and opportunism, is what gives China’s biotech machine its velocity. Central planning provides the scaffolding; relentless market pressure stress tests what can actually stand. From Beijing’s AI-driven labs to Suzhou’s antibody factories and Shenzhen’s medtech corridors, China’s hubs have become laboratories not only for science but for industrial design itself.
Europe’s challenge, by contrast, is not an absence of ideas but of alignment. Commercial leaders know precisely what success requires, scale, cohesion, and sustained capital, yet political will lags behind. The United States, meanwhile, continues to dominate through density and dollars, but its advantage is being quietly eroded by China’s capacity to execute at national scale.
If the last decade was about invention, the next may be about infrastructure and integration, and here, China has already laid much of the groundwork. Whether its model can sustain the creativity and openness required for global leadership remains an open question.
Have you found this article interesting? Sign up to our newsletter to stay updated on our latest articles, news and insight.
Notes on sources
- Park/company claims (tenants, counts) come from official park or government sites; output/investment figures are from municipal/economic reports and credible trade press. Where figures shift year-to-year, we cite the most recent, specific numbers we could confirm publicly.
The wider views expressed in this article are those of BridgeCross Bio and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the individuals quoted.