The OODA Loop and its Implications

U.S. Air Force Colonel John Boyd, a key military strategist of the 20th century, introduced a decision-making framework known as the OODA loop: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. This model highlights the importance of responsive action based on a thorough understanding of the strategic landscape.

Countries that excel in biotechnology will reap not only economic benefits but also exert significant influence during future global crises, a notion well understood by China.

The critical phase in this process is often “orientation.” Leaders must extend their focus beyond immediate issues to grasp the larger ramifications of their decisions while also anticipating potential unforeseen outcomes. Neglecting this step may allow leaders to resolve present challenges but could also lead to greater difficulties down the road.

Take, for example, President Donald Trump’s attempts to reduce prescription drug costs. A major strategy from his administration includes implementing a most-favored-nation policy, where the U.S. would align certain drug prices with lower rates from selected foreign countries.

There’s sense in this approach. It’s clear that Americans frequently pay far more for medications than individuals in Europe or Canada. Lowering these costs would, undoubtedly, provide financial relief to many families.

Yet, effective public policy necessitates consideration of factors beyond immediate savings.

Historically, economists have pointed out that government-enforced price controls can lead to diminished investment and supply over time. For instance, President Richard Nixon’s extensive wage and price controls in the 1970s aimed to combat inflation, only to result in stagnation—characterized by soaring inflation alongside sluggish economic growth. Similarly, price controls on energy led to decreased production incentives and subsequent fuel shortages, while rent control in cities like New York hindered new housing developments, exacerbating housing scarcity.

The pharmaceutical industry operates under analogous economic principles.

Creating a single groundbreaking drug typically necessitates over ten years of research, countless failed attempts, and billions of dollars in investment. The profits garnered from successful drugs bolster funding for research that paves the way for future treatments.

If government policies drastically slash these profits, companies are unlikely to cease production of existing drugs. What’s more probable is a reduction in research and development budget, which would slow the pace of innovation.

This slowdown could pose grave economic and national security dilemmas.

Biotechnology has emerged as a strategically vital sector globally, affecting various fields including healthcare, agriculture, military medicine, and responses to biological threats.

Countries leading in biotechnology will not only possess economic leverage but also strategic power in forthcoming global challenges, a fact that China is acutely aware of.

In the same aggressive manner the Chinese government has invested in AI, critical minerals, and advanced manufacturing, it recognizes biotechnology as a national priority.

From 2016 to 2021, the market capitalization of Chinese biotech firms soared to around $300 billion, while significant government funds have gone into research centers and biotech education.

Statistics reveal an even more striking narrative. According to the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, China conducted over 7,100 clinical drug trials in 2024, surpassing the U.S. count of about 6,000. China’s share of global clinical trials ballooned from approximately 1% in 2009 to nearly 30% now, while the U.S. share is on the decline.

Chinese researchers currently produce about 60% of the world’s highly cited biotechnology studies and hold 22% of global patents in drug and medical technology, which indicates a staggering 380% increase in the past ten years.

Moreover, China graduates around twice as many STEM students each year compared to the U.S.

These figures illustrate China’s perspective on biotechnology as crucial for its future economic and military dominance. Conversely, the U.S. seems to be treating what could be a historic strategic strength as merely a domestic pricing concern.

This should raise alarms for Americans.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the risks associated with reliance on foreign supply chains for pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. Imagine a future health crisis—maybe a targeted biological assault. In that scenario, the U.S. wouldn’t just rely on international manufacturing; it would also depend on foreign research, patents, and biotechnological advancements.

China’s current leverage through its command over critical resources could amplify if it extends its control over vaccine development, precision medicine, and defenses against bio-warfare.

This doesn’t imply that drug prices should remain inflated; Americans deserve access to affordable medicine.

The real challenge lies in crafting policies that cut costs while still fostering the innovation responsible for America’s preeminence in biomedical advancements.

Trump’s tendency to act swiftly, implementing transformative policies that challenge traditional norms, can indeed be beneficial for business. Rapid decisions can grant competitive edges. But governing a nation involves complexities that differ from running a business. Public policies shape industries, influence scientific progress, affect national security, and impact the lives of future generations.

Short-term decisions that may seem advantageous could have strategic consequences that unfold years later.

Boyd grasped these intricacies. It wasn’t merely about speed; it involved comprehending the entire battlefield before deciding on a course of action.

The U.S. should aim for reforms to make prescription drugs more affordable. However, before implementing policies that could hinder investment in biotechnology, policymakers ought to take sufficient time to address Boyd’s necessary investigative steps.

In a landscape marked by rising competition from China, safeguarding America’s position in biotechnology might be as crucial for national security as maintaining advantages in air, sea, space, and cyberspace.

What’s often overlooked in decision-making is that the most perilous outcomes may not be visible today. They might be lurking just out of sight, affecting people and circumstances we can’t yet foresee.