The United States is indisputably the world’s leader in biomedical research and innovation – and for good reason.

Public investment through agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, combined with private-sector entrepreneurship and philanthropic support, has driven discoveries that have fundamentally changed how diseases are prevented, diagnosed and treated. Vaccines, antibiotics, cancer therapies, imaging technologies and advances in genomics all emerged from an ecosystem in which government funding, academic research and private capital reinforced one another.

These scientific achievements have translated into immense gains for society. To be sure, health care outcomes vary widely by region and socioeconomic group. But that doesn’t diminish the reality that once-fatal diseases have become manageable or curable. All told, life expectancy has increased by eight years since the 1960s.

Meanwhile, the economics of health advance have complemented the social gains. Millions of jobs have been created across research institutions, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies – and, of course, health care institutions. Regional economies, from Boston and the San Francisco Bay area to North Carolina’s Research Triangle, have been built around life sciences innovation. Biomedical research has also strengthened America’s global standing, serving as a source of soft power in bolstering diplomacy and goodwill.

Yet this leadership is no longer guaranteed. The systems that supported past success are under growing strain. Governance of the biomedical system is fragmented across agencies and levels of government. Core infrastructure (e.g., data systems, clinical research capacity and workforce) is unevenly developed and deployed. Funding is often short-term and disconnected from long-term needs. At the same time, peer nations are pursuing coordinated national life sciences strategies that integrate research, data, workforce and policy.

Without modernization and alignment, the United States risks falling behind – not because of a lack of scientific talent or ingenuity but because the underlying systems that translate discovery into real-world impact are not adapting to the evolving needs of modern science.

This article makes the case for the U.S. Congress to commission a National Life Sciences Strategy and Implementation Plan to set priorities, guide investment and sustain American leadership in biomedical research and innovation. The goal is not to centralize science or dictate research agendas but to strengthen the biomedical enterprise to deliver better health, stronger economic growth and greater national security.

The Challenge

The U.S. biomedical ecosystem is vast but highly fragmented. Federal agencies operate under disparate statutory missions, authorities and budget processes. States invest independently based on local priorities and economic strategies. Universities compete for grants, talent and prestige. Philanthropic organizations focus on specific diseases or populations. Companies allocate capital according to market incentives and shareholder expectations.

These dynamics have fueled creativity, competition and innovation. But they also create systemic inefficiencies that become more pronounced as science grows more complex. As a result:

Research priorities shift frequently, reflecting changes in leadership rather than longterm scientific opportunity or population health needs.

Data are generated at enormous scale, but remain siloed across institutions and agencies, limiting their usefulness to improve health.

Clinical research infrastructure is concentrated in a relatively small number of academic medical centers and geographies, leaving many communities without access to the cutting-edge therapies that clinical trials can offer.

Regulatory and payment systems lag scientific opportunities, creating uncertainty for innovators and delaying patient access to effective treatments.

Workforce pipelines struggle to keep pace with emerging needs in science, data and technology.

Vision for a National Life Sciences Strategy

The adoption of a National Life Sciences Strategy is not intended to replace investigator- initiated research or to dictate the nation’s scientific agenda. Scientific creativity and discovery remain the foundation of progress. Instead, a national strategy would shape the conditions under which science thrives, providing clarity, stability and coordination to strengthen the connective tissue of the biomedical enterprise.

Fundamentally, a national strategy would:

Set clear, long-term priorities grounded in scientific opportunity, population health needs and national interests.

Align investment across agencies and sectors, reducing duplication and signaling where sustained effort is required.

Identify gaps in infrastructure, including data platforms, clinical research capacity and workforce pipelines.

Provide continuity and accountability across political cycles, enabling ambitious, long-term goals to be pursued.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s decadal survey offers a model for long-term scientific priority-setting that balances ambition with accountability. Conducted every 10 years by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at the request of Congress and NASA, the survey brings together independent experts to assess scientific opportunity, technical readiness and budget realities across an entire field of NASA-related technology.

The resulting consensus-driven roadmap guides mission selection, investment decisions and cross-agency coordination over a sustained period, while incorporating mid-cycle updates to respond to breakthroughs or changing conditions. Critically, the process provides stability across political cycles, aligns public and private stakeholders around shared priorities and creates transparency for Congress and the public about how resources are allocated. A comparable approach applied to the life sciences could help the U.S. move beyond fragmented initiatives toward a longterm strategic framework for biomedical research and innovation, one that is capable of anticipating future challenges and sustaining global leadership.

Why Action is Needed Now

Three forces make a National Life Sciences Strategy especially urgent.

Global Competition Is Intensifying

Other nations increasingly view leadership in the life sciences as a strategic asset tied to economic growth, national security and global influence. Countries including the UK, Australia, UAE and Singapore are pursuing coordinated strategies that integrate research funding, data infrastructure, workforce development, regulatory modernization and industrial policy.

The United States remains the global leader in biomedical innovation, but that position cannot be taken for granted. In an era of strategic competition, a National Life Sciences Strategy is a tool to sustain competitiveness and ensure that American leadership continues to deliver benefits at home and abroad.

The Future of Biomedical Research Is Shared

Modern medical breakthroughs increasingly rely on large, shared resources. These include health data from millions of people, genetic information, powerful computing systems and artificial intelligence tools. These shared platforms make it possible to understand the biological basis of disease, design better clinical trials and develop treatments faster and more efficiently.

Building and maintaining these resources require sustained, long-term investment. When funding is short-term and fragmented, institutions may build duplicative systems that cannot communicate, wasting resources and limiting impact. Without coordination, the United States risks underinvesting in the foundational infrastructure that modern science depends on or duplicating efforts across institutions and agencies.

Translation Requires Alignment Beyond Discovery

The primary bottleneck in delivering new treatments to patients is no longer scientific discovery but rather translating scientific knowledge into real-world capacity. When parts of the biomedical system are misaligned, promising innovations can stall. Clinical trials may be designed without considering what evidence regulators or payers will really need to clear new technologies for widespread use. Data collected in research settings may not reflect true patient pathologies or demographics. Payment policies are not flexible enough to accommodate new innovations.

A national strategy could help ensure that research priorities anticipate downstream needs, aligning discovery with regulatory review, coverage decisions and implementation in health systems. This alignment can shorten timelines, reduce uncertainty and accelerate access to effective interventions.

Elements of a National Strategy

Several components are essential to a National Life Sciences Strategy.

Independent, Expert-Led Priority Setting

An independent expert body should be commissioned by the U.S. Congress to develop a National Strategy on a fixed cycle, such as every five years. Independence and transparency are critical to building trust and ensuring that priorities reflect evidence, not short-term pressures. Modeled on successful approaches in other domains, this body would:

• Assess scientific opportunity across disciplines.
• Consider population health needs and disease burden.
• Identify gaps in infrastructure, data and workforce capacity.
• Engage public, private, philanthropic and patient stakeholders.

An Implementation Plan With Accountability

The national strategy must be paired with a clear plan that:

• Identifies priority areas for coordinated investment.
• Clarifies roles and responsibilities across federal agencies and entities.
• Signals opportunities for public-private partnership.
• Includes mechanisms for transparency, measurement and mid-cycle reassessment.

Core Strategy Components

To be effective, a National Life Sciences Strategy must also consider the structural enablers of biomedical progress. At a minimum, the strategy should:

• Identify “grand challenges” where coordinated investment can bring forth transformative advances (preventing neurodegenerative disease or building foundational biological resources). These challenges should be treated as generational undertakings supported by sustained funding, shared infrastructure and innovative financing mechanisms.
• Include workforce projections to identify emerging skill needs and potential talent gaps across the biomedical enterprise and to inform alignment of education, training and federal workforce policies.
• Assess critical technological or data gaps that constrain research, development and translation, to guide targeted investments in infrastructure.

Robust Input Processes

The credibility of a National Life Sciences Strategy will depend on the quality and breadth of its input processes. Strategy development should:

• Include systematic horizon scanning to identify emerging technologies, evolving health threats and shifts in global scientific and competitive dynamics.
• Engage the public, capturing patient, caregiver and community perspectives on unmet needs and research priorities.
• Rely on expert advisory panels that bring together diverse disciplines across science, medicine, industry, ethics and policy to ensure balanced, evidence-based recommendations.
• Incorporate international benchmarking to assess where U.S. leadership is strongest and where it is most vulnerable.

Impact for Key Stakeholders

A National Life Sciences Strategy would deliver tangible value across the ecosystem:

• For patients and communities, it promises broader access to clinical research and faster translation of discoveries into treatments and cures.
• For researchers and institutions, it provides clarity on long-term priorities and sustained investment in shared infrastructure.
• For industry and investors, it offers predictability and stability and supports longterm planning and partnership.
• For philanthropies, it offers a framework to align resources with national priorities and maximize impact.
• For policymakers, it provides a practical mechanism to steward public investment in responsible ways even while we strengthen our health, economic competitiveness and national security.

The Challenge

The convergence of advances, availability of data and heightened awareness of risk creates an opportunity to strengthen America’s biomedical enterprise. But opportunity alone hardly guarantees leadership, which requires intentional coordination, sustained investment and accountability. A National Strategy, commissioned and sustained by the U.S. Congress, would be a major step in this direction.