When Chinese assets become key collaboration targets for global pharmaceutical companies, and when Chinese innovative drugs grow into important "leaders" in the global pharmaceutical market, there is an urgent need to establish a normalized, internationalized, and market-oriented high-end conference platform in China itself—one that systematically showcases the advantages of Chinese innovative drugs, connects multinational pharmaceutical companies and overseas investment institutions, leads the formulation of global rules, and drives the upgrading of the innovation ecosystem.

From July 22 to 24, 2026, the 1st China Pharmaceutical Innovation Conference (CPIC), hosted by TONACEA, will be held at the Golden Hall of the National Exhibition and Convention Center (Shanghai). The conference will feature over 50 thematic events and corporate satellite sessions, bringing together thousands of global industry leaders in Shanghai Hongqiao. Through more than 300 hot topics, participants will focus on the core logic behind the rise of Chinese innovative drugs, explore globalization strategies for innovative pharmaceuticals, and establish a new paradigm of "Chinese Innovation – Global Translation – Shanghai Transaction."

This year's conference features a series of special roundtable sessions focused on in-depth discussions of core industry issues. Among them, the debate on "Chinese Biotech: Integrated R&D, Manufacturing & Commercialization vs. Specialized Division of Labor" has been passionately curated by Tao Qiucheng of Yatai Capital!

Background

As China's innovative drug industry enters a new phase characterized by "product leadership and globalization as wings," biotechs and pharmas face a critical strategic choice in their business models: should they pursue an "integrated R&D, manufacturing, and commercialization" path, or should they adhere to "specialized division of labor," focusing on R&D and relying on BD and partnerships? Behind these different paths lie complex trade-offs involving corporate strategy, capital returns, organizational capabilities, and global competitiveness. This debate invites representatives from industry, investment, and academia to engage in an in-depth dialogue around this core issue.

Debate Topics

1. Debate Issues

1. Should Chinese innovative drug companies adopt an "R&D + BD" model or a full-chain "in-house R&D + manufacturing + commercialization" model? The "asset-light" model of BD transactions vs. the "asset-heavy" path of independent commercialization—which is more suitable for today's Chinese biotechs?

2. How should Chinese innovative drug companies balance short-term interests with long-term goals? Shareholder returns vs. sustained R&D investment—how to find equilibrium between capital pressure and strategic resolve?

3. What gaps still need to be filled for Chinese innovative drug companies to benchmark against MNCs? From R&D capabilities to global commercialization, from organizational management to capital operations—how far are Chinese pharmaceutical companies from world-class standards?

2. Debate Focus Points

Arguments likely to be made by the "Specialized Division of Labor" side:

• Building an in-house commercialization team is costly and time-consuming, unsuitable for most biotechs

• BD deals can provide rapid cash flow and optimize resource allocation, suitable for R&D-driven companies

• Benchmarking globally, many successful biotechs do not directly handle sales but are acquired or enter partnerships

• "Selling molecules" is not equivalent to "selling saplings"; rational BD can create a virtuous cycle

Arguments likely to be made by the "Integrated R&D, Manufacturing & Commercialization" side:

• Independent commercialization is necessary to control pricing power, brand equity, and patient insights

• BD deals carry the risk of asset returns and do not create sustainable moats

• Only "full-chain" capabilities enable ultimate global competition

• The uniqueness of the Chinese market (insurance, distribution channels, physician education) demands localized capabilities

3. Extended Discussion Directions

• Is there a "third path"? For example, a hybrid model of "in-house R&D + partnerships + regional commercialization"

• How should policies and capital guide companies to choose rational paths?

• In the next 3-5 years, which types of companies are more likely to succeed?

Agenda & Speakers

1. Debate Agenda

• Opening host introduces debate background, topics, and speakers (3 minutes)

• Point-counterpoint on "selling molecules vs. building in-house teams" (12 minutes)

• Discussion on "short-term returns vs. long-term investment" (12 minutes)

• Discussion on "gaps relative to MNCs and pathways forward" (12 minutes)

• One-sentence summaries from speakers; host synthesizes consensus and divergence (6 minutes)

2. Participant Roles