21st-Century Foreign Left-Wing Scholars’ Critique of Biocapitalism

Since the 21st century, with the widespread application of biotechnology in production and daily life, the life sciences have penetrated every level of capitalist society at an unprecedented scale and speed. Against this backdrop, some insightful and forward-looking Western left-wing scholars have attempted to examine the development of contemporary life sciences and biotechnology within the perspective of capitalist critique, and to theorize and systematize it. In 2006, the renowned American scholar Kaushik Sunder Rajan published his representative work *Biocapital: The Constitution of Postgenomic Life*. Based on a cutting-edge perspective on the development of life sciences and biotechnology, this book organically integrates the theoretical core of Marxist political economy into the organizational framework of Foucault’s biopolitics, seeking to elucidate the interactive relationship between biotechnology and contemporary capitalism, thereby constructing a new theoretical category for studying contemporary biotechnology and its systems of exchange and circulation—biocapital. So-called biocapitalism is a new form of capitalist existence in which biocapital, within the contemporary world capitalist system, continuously extracts profits and realizes capital valorization by means of the life sciences and biotechnology. Thereafter, the issue of biocapitalism has attracted widespread attention from Western scholars. Some left-wing scholars have successively conducted research and judgments on biocapitalism from the perspective of a critique of political economy, opening up new horizons for the critique of contemporary capitalism.

21世纪以来，伴随着生物技术在生产及生活层面的广泛应用，生命科学以前所未有的规模和速度渗透到资本主义社会的各个层面。在此种背景下，西方一些富有洞察力和前瞻性的左翼学者试图在资本主义批判的视域中考察当代生命科学和生物技术的发展，并使之理论化、系统化。2006年，美国著名学者考希克·桑德·拉詹（Kaushik Sunder Rajan）出版了其代表性著作《生物资本：后基因组生命的构成》（Biocapital:The Constitution of Postgenomic Life），该书立足于生命科学与生物技术发展的前沿视角，将马克思主义政治经济学的理论内核有机融入福柯生命政治学的组织架构之中，力图阐明生物科技与当代资本主义之间的互动关系，由此建构出研究当代生物科技及其交换与循环系统的全新理论范畴——生物资本（Biocapital）。而所谓生物资本主义，则是生物资本在当代世界资本主义体系中凭借生命科学与生物技术，不断获取利润并实现资本增殖的一种新型资本主义存在形式。此后，关于生物资本主义的问题引起了西方学者的广泛关注，一些左翼学者先后从政治经济学批判的视角对生物资本主义进行研判研究，开辟了当代资本主义批判的新视界。

I. The Latest Mode of Capitalist Domination in the Age of the Life Sciences

一、资本主义在生命科学时代的最新统治样态

Rajan argues that the emergence of biocapital does not signify that capitalism has entered a clearly epochal stage; this stage does not leave behind the capitalism we know or fundamentally undermine it. On the contrary, biocapitalism is a continuation, an evolution, a subset, a form different from its predecessor. Biocapitalism arises in the process of capitalism’s modernizing transformation and is the latest mode of capitalist domination in the age of the life sciences. As a contemporary new form of capitalism, it conforms to the law of development that unites universality and particularity.

拉詹认为，生物资本的出现并不意味着资本主义进入一个明显的划时代阶段，这一阶段并非将我们所熟知的资本主义抛在身后或者从根本上破坏资本主义，与之相反，生物资本主义是对资本主义的一个延续，一个演变，一个子集，一种不同于前者的形式。生物资本主义产生于资本主义的现代化转变过程中，是资本主义在生命科学时代的最新统治样态。作为资本主义的当代新形态，其符合普遍性与特殊性相统一的发展规律。

(I) Biocapitalism remains a political-economic system under the domination of bourgeois will. It obtains ownership of life information and biological products by appropriating “genetic codes,” thereby using economic advantages to place living beings under an inescapable “shadow of biological existence,” ultimately seizing global economic and political domination.

（一）生物资本主义依然是资产阶级意志支配下的政治经济体系，其通过占有“基因密码”获取生命信息和生物产品的所有权，进而利用经济上的优势将生命体置于无法逃脱的“生存的生物之影”，最终攫取世界的经济和政治统治权。

1. From the perspective of its generative logic, biocapitalism is the result of capital seeking rent from biotechnology, and its ultimate purpose remains the maintenance of capital valorization and the reproduction of capitalist relations of production.

1. 从生成逻辑来看，生物资本主义是资本向生物科技寻租的结果，其最终目的仍然是维系资本增殖和资本主义生产关系的再生产。

Over the past 30 years of biocapitalism’s vigorous development, the life sciences have become increasingly dependent on the capitalist mode of production, and have become ever more blatantly a tool for maintaining capital valorization and capitalist relations of production, as well as for a new round of expansion, penetration, and profit-seeking. Nikolas Rose points out that contemporary molecular biomedicine requires years of large-scale capital investment to yield results: purchasing expensive equipment, maintaining adequately staffed laboratories, conducting multiple clinical trials, and covering the costs of overcoming regulatory hurdles. Similar to previous forms of capitalism, most of this funding comes from venture capital provided by private companies and capital raised through stock markets. Therefore, these investments naturally have the power to demand that the invested parties submit to all the urgent needs of capital, such as ensuring a certain level of profit output and meeting shareholders’ demands for value returns. In this context, the life sciences and capitalism are mutually dependent: on the one hand, the life sciences rely on capital support to develop and grow; on the other hand, capital needs to form a monopoly position in the life sciences to extract excess profits. Under continuous rent-seeking by capital, biotechnology is easily controlled and co-opted by capital, ultimately losing its scientific neutrality and degenerating into a tool for capital’s profit-seeking.

在生物资本主义蓬勃发展的过去30年，生命科学变得越来越依赖于资本主义的生产方式，越来越赤裸裸地成为维系资本增殖和资本主义生产关系并进行新一轮扩张渗透逐利的工具。尼古拉斯·罗斯（Nikolas Rose）指出，当代分子生物医学需要多年的大规模资金投入才能获得成果产出：购买昂贵的设备、维持人员充足的实验室、多次进行临床试验、解决监管障碍的花费等。与以往的资本主义形态类似，这些资金大多来自于私人公司提供的风险投资和股票市场所带来的集资。所以，这些投资自然有权力要求被投资方听从于资本的所有迫切需要，比如必须保证一定利润的产出和满足股东对价值回报的要求。在此种背景下，生命科学和资本主义是相伴相生的关系：一方面，生命科学依赖于资本的支持才能得以发展壮大；另一方面，资本也需要在生命科学领域形成垄断地位以获取超额利润。在资本的不断寻租下，生物科技极易被资本控制、裹挟，最终失去其科学的中立性，沦为资本的逐利工具。

2. From the perspective of its operational logic, biocapitalism is the product of a “conspiracy” between the logic of capital and the logic of power it drives.

2. 从运行逻辑来看，生物资本主义是资本逻辑同其所驱动的权力逻辑“合谋”的产物。

From its birth, the development of biocapitalism has always been jointly influenced by the logic of capital and the logic of power. One important manifestation of this is the patenting and use of life science-related inventions. In her investigation of the history of patents in the life sciences, Breske Ashleigh found that global demand for pharmaceuticals has led to a continuous increase in biopiracy in the Global South. Once biotech companies discover a drug they consider profitable, they immediately apply for relevant patents, so that no other company can profit from it. Because the life sciences as a “tool” inherently require high levels of sustained capital investment and comprehensive political support, those who can use this “tool” for a new round of profit-seeking are often capital oligarchs with abundant capital and strong political lobbying capabilities. In fact, patents, protected by relevant laws in various countries, can be seen as a form of “legal monopoly.” Due to patent barriers, any economic entity intending to participate in world trade cannot infringe on patents owned by others; otherwise, it will face severe sanctions and be denied entry into the capitalist world trade system. This leads to the situation where most biotech companies in developing countries are generally unable to compete directly with the many multinational corporations in developed countries that have ample capital reserves and national policy support. This differentiation greatly increases the prices of patented drugs, bringing huge economic benefits and political hegemony to multinational corporations and developed countries, while also leading to more severe inequality on a global scale. Overall, biocapitalism has gradually developed alongside neoliberalism. It is a community of capital and power composed of capital and the scientific practice of life science technology, with comprehensive support from the state apparatus, aimed at making biological life part of economic growth, thereby “capturing the potential value in life processes.” This community of capital and power has not changed capitalism’s inherent nature of pursuing surplus value by any means necessary. Through the life sciences, it uses various life forms (such as genes, cells, reproductive organs, plant compounds, etc.) to further construct capitalism’s “powerful production system.” In this way, the logic of capital and the logic of power continue to “conspire” in the era of biocapitalism. The fundamental nature of private ownership of the means of production in biocapitalism has not changed at all; instead, it has become increasingly concentrated in life science-related industries.

生物资本主义自诞生之日起，它的发展就始终受着资本逻辑与权力逻辑的共同影响，其中一个重要的体现就是与生命科学相关的专利申请与使用。布雷斯克·阿什利（Breske Ashleigh）在对生命科学领域专利历史的调查研究时发现，全球对药品的需求导致了南半球生物盗窃（Biopiracy）的持续增加，生物公司一旦发现它们认为有利可图的药物就会立即申请相关专利，这样就没有其他公司能从中获利。由于生命科学这种“工具”天生就需要较高水平的持续资本投入与全方位的政治支持，也就使得能利用这一“工具”进行新一轮逐利的往往都是资本雄厚且拥有较强政治游说能力的资本寡头。事实上，专利在世界各国相关法律的保护下可以看作一种“合法的垄断权”。由于专利壁垒的存在，只要打算参与世界贸易的经济实体，都不可能侵犯他者所属的专利，否则将会得到严厉制裁而被拒绝进入资本主义世界贸易体系。这就导致大多发展中国家的生物公司一般不可能有能力与发达国家众多有着充分资本储备与国家政策支持的跨国公司直接竞争。这种分化在很大程度上提高了专利药品的价格，让跨国公司与发达国家获得了巨大的经济利益与政治霸权的同时，也导致了全球范围内更加严重的不平等。整体来看，生物资本主义是伴随着新自由主义的诞生而逐步发展的，其是由资本与生命科学技术的科学实践组成、有国家机器的全方位支持的，为了寻求让生物的生命成为经济增长的一部分，从而“捕获生命过程中的潜在价值”的资本与权力共同体。这种资本与权力共同体并没有改变资本主义一直以来无所不用其极追求剩余价值的本性，其通过生命科学，利用各种生命形式（如基因、细胞、生殖器官、植物化合物等）来进一步构筑资本主义的“强大生产体制”。这样一来，资本逻辑与权力逻辑继续在生物资本主义时代不断“合谋”，生物资本主义生产资料私有制的根本性质非但没有发生任何改变，反而在与生命科学相关的行业愈发呈现出集中化态势。

3. Within the framework of biocapitalism, the relations of production in which a minority of the bourgeoisie exploits the majority of the proletariat have not changed.

3. 在生物资本主义架构中，少数资产阶级剥削大多数无产阶级的生产关系并未改变。

Equal exploitation of labor power is capital’s primary human right, and this is no exception in the biocapitalist stage. Oksala Johanna points out that the rapid development of the life sciences industry and market has also brought an urgent problem: it has created demand for new types of biological services and biological products (for example, surrogacy, sale of body tissues, and participation in clinical trials), yet the providers of these services and substances are often unemployed or underemployed people from the global “South.” This means that in the biocapitalist mode of production, if capitalists are to obtain profit, they still rely on extracting the surplus value of a vast multitude of biological laborers, which is essentially no different from the era of industrial capitalism. Generally speaking, biological laborers roughly comprise two parts: scientific and technological workers with knowledge of biology, and “volunteers” who use their own bodies to participate, directly or indirectly, in biological experiments conducted by various biotechnology enterprises and institutions. Both mainly receive remuneration from capitalists by expending their own physical or mental labor, but the latter group, compared with the former, often bears greater exploitation while receiving only minimal returns. Clearly, this has not changed the class relations between people under the capitalist system. In the distribution of profits, the big capitalists still pocket the vast majority of the gains, while what biological laborers can obtain is a few scraps. Specifically, biotechnology-related fields are often funded by large financial conglomerates, and thus they also acquire the monopolistic nature that capital necessarily possesses: once a biotechnology enterprise achieves a de facto monopoly in some aspect of its industry, it simultaneously gains pricing power over related products in that field, such as new drugs. New drugs and therapies also entail huge cost inputs such as massive research and development funds. By virtue of their monopoly position, the product pricing of many biotechnology enterprises is beyond the reach of ordinary people. Similarly, profit distribution is entirely controlled by monopoly capital; compared with capitalists who live by clipping coupons, biological laborers participating in biotechnology R&D can only obtain meager income disproportionate to the amount of labor they expend.

平等地剥削劳动力，是资本的首要人权，这在生物资本主义阶段也不例外。奥克萨拉·约翰娜（Oksala Johanna）指出，生命科学产业和市场迎来飞速发展的同时，也带来了一个紧迫问题：其创造了对新型生物服务和生物产品的需求（例如，代孕、出售身体组织和参与临床试验），但这些服务和物质的提供者往往是来自全球“南方”的失业或未充分就业的人，这意味着在生物资本主义生产方式中，资本家如要获得利润，仍旧需要依靠榨取茫茫众多生物劳工的剩余价值，与工业资本主义时代并无本质差异。一般来说，生物劳工大体包含两部分：具有生物学相关知识的科技从业者和用自己的肉体参与或间接参与各种生物技术企业和机构进行生物实验的“志愿者”。二者都主要付出自己的体力或脑力劳动从资本家处获得报酬，后者相较前者往往要承受更大的剥削，却只能获得最少的收益。很明显，这并没有改变资本主义制度下人与人之间的阶级关系。在利润分配时，大资本家仍然将绝大部分获利收入囊中，生物劳工所能得到的是少许残羹剩饭。具体而言，生物技术相关领域往往被大资本财阀注资，因而其同样也获得了资本所必然存在的垄断性：生物技术企业在取得了本行业某方面的事实垄断地位后，也就同时获得了该领域相关产品如新药物的定价权。而新的药物与疗法也意味着巨量的研发资金等成本投入，凭借其垄断地位，很多生物技术企业的产品定价也是普罗大众所无法承受的。同理，利润分配也完全被垄断资本所把控，参加生物技术研发的生物劳工相较于坐食“剪息票”的资本家而言，只能获得与其劳动量不相符的微薄收入。

(2) Although biocapitalism has not changed the essence of its capitalist mode of production, it has shifted the means of extracting surplus value from the person in the sense of labor power to the person in the sense of the biological organism. This shift not only has brought about a revolutionary change in the mode of capital valorization under biocapitalism, but has also greatly increased the extent and scope of capital’s cumulative accumulation. Therefore, biocapitalism, born in the new era of the life sciences, exhibits some new changes and manifests the particularity of the times.

（二）虽然生物资本主义并未改变其资本主义生产方式的本质，但它将剥削剩余价值的途径由劳动力意义上的人转向生物体意义上的人。这一转变不但使生物资本主义的资本增殖方式发生了革命性的变化，还使资本累进积累的程度与范围大幅增加。因此，诞生于生命科学新时代的生物资本主义具有一些新变化，表现出时代特殊性。

1. In the biocapitalist stage, the mode of capital valorization has undergone a revolutionary change.

1. 生物资本主义阶段，资本增殖方式发生了革命性的变化。

Generally speaking, the form of value extraction in biocapitalism is more virtualized; it is not satisfied with merely exploiting people’s present value, but is based on creating “future concepts” to produce “future products,” with the aim of also exploiting people’s future value. Clayton Pierce points out that the driving force for the development of biocapitalism often comes from investment in biotechnology products such as virtual drugs, gene therapy drugs, and plant compounds. To a certain extent, these biotechnology products are all regarded as potential exchange values and are contained within the “imaginary production zone” under the horizon of expectations unique to biocapitalist society. Pierce calls this investment in “potential future” and “virtual” biological products and their exchange values the “expectation value framework” of biocapitalist production. One of the most important features of this framework is that it can “manufacture” commodities that do not yet exist but have value. In terms of the method of value realization, the ultimate realization of the “future value” invested in by biocapitalism is similar to the ultimate realization of value under the traditional capitalist relations of production—that is, both require the completion of social reproduction through the exchange link. The potential consumers of these “future products” full of biotechnology are often the laborers mentioned above. According to Rajan’s research, based on the development of pharmacogenomics or “personalized medicine,” the medical “risks” faced by current or future patients are entangled with the new therapeutic hopes developed for these patients through life science innovation. Because of the differences in each person’s genomic profile risks, everyone is a potential target for therapeutic intervention: “In the precise calculations of biocapitalism, every person is a patient waiting to be treated and at the same time a consumer waiting to buy.” Therefore, when the discourse of “high-risk” patients and consumers becomes entangled with life science R&D investment, relevant enterprises no longer need to manufacture concrete products to make money. On the contrary, patent knowledge alone is enough to increase the market price of their stocks, thereby benefiting shareholders. The virtualized character of capital valorization under biocapitalism originates from this.

总的来说，生物资本主义的价值获取形式更加虚拟化，其并不满足于只剥削人的现时价值，而是立足于创造“未来概念”生产“未来产品”，以期对人的未来价值同样进行剥削。克莱顿·皮尔斯（Clayton Pierce）指出，生物资本主义的发展较为常见的推动力来源于投资虚拟药物、基因治疗药物、植物化合物等生物技术产品，这些生物技术产品在一定程度上都被视为潜在交换价值而包含在生物资本主义社会所独创的期望视野下的“想象生产区”内。皮尔斯将这种对“潜在的未来的”“虚拟的”生物产品和其交换价值的投资称之为生物资本主义生产的期望价值框架，这一框架的最重要特征之一就是它能够“制造出”尚未形成却有价值的商品。在价值实现方法上，生物资本主义所投资的“未来价值”的最终实现与传统资本主义生产关系下价值的最终实现类似，即都需要通过交换环节来完成社会再生产，而这些充满生物技术的“未来产品”的潜在消费者则往往是上文提到的劳动者。根据拉詹的研究，建立在药物基因组学或“个性化医学”发展的基础上，当前或未来患者面临的医疗“风险”与这些患者通过生命科学创新所开发的新治疗希望纠缠在一起。每个人由于其基因组档案风险的不同，都是接受治疗干预的潜在目标：“在生物资本主义的精密计算中，每个人都是一个等待的病人，同时也是一个等待的消费者。”所以，当“高风险”患者与消费者的话语创造与生命科学研发投资纠缠在一起时，相关企业就不再需要为了赚钱而制造具体的产品。恰恰相反，专利知识就足以增加其股票在市场上的价格从而使股东受益，生物资本主义资本增殖的虚拟化特征即源于此。

2. In the biocapitalist stage, the extent of capital’s expanded reproduction and the scope of its expansion and penetration are continuously increasing.

2. 生物资本主义阶段，资本扩大再生产的程度与扩张渗透的范围不断扩大。

The breadth of surplus value extraction under biocapitalism has been further expanded; it is not satisfied with merely appropriating people’s labor time, but attempts to appropriate the entire time of people’s lives, treating life itself as the source of value. According to the formulations of classical Marxist writers, under the capitalist system, after workers sell their labor power to capitalists, their labor time is generally divided into two parts: necessary labor time and surplus labor time. Generally speaking, during necessary labor time workers reproduce the value of their own labor power, and during surplus labor time they produce surplus value for the capitalist without compensation. Time outside work should be time for workers’ own rest and development. Ilyushenka Nadzeya, studying the issue of human “well-being” in the biocapitalist era, found that in the traditional capitalist model, workers indeed had a clearly demarcated working time and leisure time. But in the biocapitalist era, this situation has changed: because the production of immaterial labor gradually occupies a dominant position, the importance of so-called “Fordist labor” has significantly declined; key value comes not only from labor in the workplace, but also from human life itself. Therefore, labor begins to extend continuously and “capture” all areas of life. A new feature of the biocapitalist era is the blurring of the boundary between working time and leisure time. This blurring of boundaries is a manifestation of the change in the source of value under biocapitalism. Trigo Abril similarly points out that biocapitalism, in the form of commodities, makes both the objective and subjective spheres of human social life sources for extracting surplus value. Human life is not merely a source of value, but has become value itself. Biocapitalism extracts value not only from the body as a “material tool of work,” but also from the body as defined by the entire dimension of life. It is not satisfied with merely utilizing people’s working time, but attempts to increase its appropriation of the free time people use to define their social identity. This characteristic of biocapitalism is equivalent to a new “great transformation” of the capitalist system, a key revolution from within the capitalist system, marking the arrival of a new era.

生物资本主义剥削剩余价值的广度得到了进一步扩张，其并不满足于只占有人的劳动时间，而是企图对人生命的全部时间进行占有，将人的生命本身视为价值本源。根据马克思主义经典作家的表述，资本主义制度下，工人将劳动力出卖给资本家后其劳动时间构成一般分为两部分：必要劳动时间和剩余劳动时间。一般来讲，工人在其必要劳动时间内再生产出劳动力自身的价值，在剩余劳动时间中为资本家无偿生产剩余价值，而在工作之外的时间，应为工人自身休息和发展的时间。伊柳申卡·纳泽亚（Ilyushenka Nadzeya）研究生物资本主义时代人的“幸福感”问题时发现，在传统的资本主义模式中，工人的确有一个明确划分的工作时间和休闲时间。但在生物资本主义时代，这一情况却发生了变化：由于非物质劳动的生产逐渐占据主导地位，所谓“福特制下的劳动”的重要性显著降低；关键价值不仅来自于工作场所的劳动，还来自于人的生命本身。所以，劳动开始不断延伸并“捕获”生活的所有领域，生物资本主义时代的一个新的特征是工作时间和休闲时间界限的模糊。这种界限的模糊，即生物资本主义价值本源改变的表现。特里戈·阿布里尔（Trigo Abril）同样指出，生物资本主义以商品的形式使人类社会生活的客观和主观领域都成为提取剩余价值的来源，人的生命不仅仅是价值的来源，更成了价值本身。生物资本主义不但从作为“工作的物质工具”的身体中提取价值，而且从整个生命维度所定义的身体中提取价值,其并不满足于只利用人的工作时间，而是试图增加占有人们用来定义自己社会身份的自由时间。生物资本主义的这一特点相当于资本主义制度一次新的“伟大转变”，是一场来自资本主义制度内部的关键性革命，标志着一个新时代的到来。

II. The Instrumentality and Redemptiveness of Biocapitalism in the Perspective of the Logic of Capital and the Logic of Power

二、资本逻辑与权力逻辑视域中生物资本主义的工具性与救赎性

Fritsch Kelly points out that biocapitalism is “wealth-creating activity that relies on deregulation, privatization, individualized risk-shaping, and the reaggregation of immaterial financial transactions.” Biocapitalism, which does not alter the essence of capitalism, remains a collusion between the logic of capital and the logic of power, an exploitative entity created to extract surplus value. The implementation of its economic strategies must be guaranteed by strong political power, and the operation of political power is in turn nourished by the surplus value it exploits. In the continuous interaction between the logic of capital and the logic of power, biocapitalism exhibits instrumentality because it is used for exploitative profit, and it acquires redemptive qualities due to the inherent characteristics of the life sciences. In the deep collusion between the logic of capital and the logic of power, biocapitalism develops continuously by virtue of its instrumentality and redemptive qualities.

弗里奇·凯利（Fritsch Kelly）指出，生物资本主义是“依赖于放松管制、私有化、个性化的风险塑造，以及围绕非物质性的金融交易而重新聚合的财富创造活动”。没有改变资本主义本质的生物资本主义，仍是资本逻辑与权力逻辑合谋，为了获取剩余价值而创造的剥削实体，其经济策略的施行须以强大的政治权力为保障，政治权力的运行又以其剥削的剩余价值为滋养。在资本逻辑与权力逻辑的不断交互中，生物资本主义因被用于剥削获利而呈现出工具性，又因生命科学与生俱来的特质而获得救赎性。在资本逻辑与权力逻辑的深度合谋中，生物资本主义凭借其工具性与救赎性持续发展。

(I) Under the collusion between the logic of capital and the logic of power, capital and power continuously increase their investment in biocapitalism, represented by the life sciences, and by means of these investments they control and utilize biocapitalism for exploitative profit, endowing it with instrumentality.

（一)在资本逻辑与权力逻辑的合谋下，资本与权力方不断加大对以生命科学为代表的生物资本主义的投资，并凭借这些投资控制并利用生物资本主义进行剥削获利，赋予其工具性。

1. Because capital and power share the same fundamental interests in the era of biocapitalism, the development of biotechnology has received dual investment from both capital and power.

1. 因资本与权力方在生物资本主义时代有相同的根本利益，所以生物技术的发展得到了资本与权力的双重注资。

After capitalism developed into the new form of biocapitalism, the further growth of profits in the biotechnology sector urgently required policy support from power institutions represented by the governments of capitalist countries and sustained capital injections from large capitalists. Following the development of neoliberal policies of financial deregulation, privatization, and individualization in the 1970s and 1980s, Western economies generally operated under “the guidance, support, and protection of laws and policies, and the dissemination and protection of social norms that promote competition, free trade, and rational economic behavior.” Market values and market rationality had already become deeply ingrained. Taking the United States as an example, Melinda Cooper argues that the deregulation of banking and finance in the United States in the 1970s, combined with the highly liquid stock market and the increasing tendency toward pension securitization, led to a substantial increase in funds available for investment in emerging and high-risk biotechnology enterprises. To ensure rapid economic development in the post-industrial era, the U.S. government invested heavily in the life sciences, allocating more federal budget for scientific research than any other OECD member country. In 2003, the prospects for the biotechnology sector hit an all-time low. At that point, the U.S. government formulated a massive plan to rescue it, providing funding for “Biodefense” research over the next decade. While generously subsidizing drug development, this plan also ensured, through biodefense legislation, that any “national health emergency” would become an excellent opportunity to roll out drugs that had not undergone clinical trials. This is merely one example of Western countries using the power of capital and the state to invest heavily in the life sciences.

资本主义发展到生物资本主义新形态后，生物科技领域利润的再增长迫切需要以资本主义国家政府为代表的权力机构的政策倾斜和大资本家的持续资本注入。在经历了20世纪70～80年代的金融管制的放松和私有化、个人化的新自由主义政策的发展后，西方国家的经济普遍运行在“受到法律和政策的引导、支持和保护与促进竞争、自由贸易和理性经济行为的社会规范的传播保护”之下，市场价值观和市场理性已然深入人心。以美国为例，梅林达·库珀（Melinda Cooper）认为20世纪70年代美国放松对银行和金融业的管制，加上高流动性的股票市场和养老金证券化不断增加的倾向，导致了可用于投资新兴且高风险的生物技术企业的资金大幅度增加。为了确保后工业时代经济的高速发展，美国政府向生命科学投入了大量资金，用于科学研究的联邦预算比世界上任何一个经济合作与发展组织(OECD)成员国都多。2003年，生物技术领域的前景跌至历史最低点。此时，美国政府制定了一项庞大的计划出手相救，为未来10年的“生物防御”（Biodefense）研究提供资金。该计划对药物开发进行慷慨资助的同时，通过生物防御立法确保了任何“国家卫生紧急情况”都将成为推出未经临床试验的药物的绝佳机会，而这只是西方国家利用资本与权力的力量对生命科学大量投资的一个缩影。

2. By virtue of their massive investment in the life sciences, capital and power turn the high-tech outputs generated by the continuous development of the life sciences into tools for capital’s exploitative profit.

2. 资本与权力方凭借对生命科学的大量投资，使生命科学不断发展所带来的高科技产出成为资本剥削获利的工具。

In his investigation of the U.S. Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, Rajan discovered that there is often a very complex relationship between the private sector and the public sector in capitalist countries. One manifestation of this relationship is that the private sector can obtain enormous profits from publicly funded projects. Taking Iceland as an example, Iceland possesses excellent national medical records dating back to the early 20th century and rich, accurate genealogical information. Consequently, by virtue of its so-called genetic homogeneity, it became an ideal site for population genomics experiments. Rajan found through investigation that the Icelandic parliament granted a unique right to a genomics research company called deCODE genetics, allowing it to collect DNA samples and elucidate gene sequences, and further combine genotypic information with the country’s stored population health records to establish a genomic database of the Icelandic population. This project, called the “Health Sector Database,” claimed to have obtained the consent of Icelanders, but in fact the company did not obtain informed consent from every potential participant in the database; it merely allowed individuals to opt out. Unless Icelanders actively chose to withdraw from the database, their medical information would become part of it, and the company would ultimately use this data to generate profit. Thus, the genomic database became both a product of the interweaving and fusion of the logic of capital and the logic of power in pursuit of common interests, and a concrete manifestation of the instrumentality of biocapitalism.

拉詹在调查美国1980年通过的《贝多法案》和美国最高法院在“戴尔蒙德诉查克拉巴蒂案”的裁决中发现，资本主义国家的私营部门和公共部门之间往往存在着非常复杂的关系，这种关系的表现之一就是私营部门能够在公共部门所资助的项目中获得巨额利润。以冰岛为例，冰岛存在着可追溯到20世纪初的优秀国家医疗记录和丰富准确的家谱信息，所以其凭借着所谓的基因同质性，成为了人口基因组学实验的理想场所。拉詹经过调查发现，冰岛议会授予了一家名为“解码”（deCODE genetics）的基因组研究公司一项特有权利，允许该公司通过收集DNA样本并阐明基因序列，并进一步将基因型信息与国家保存的人口健康记录相结合，建立冰岛人口的基因组数据库。这个被称为“健康部数据库”的项目宣称其得到了冰岛人的同意，但实际上该公司并没有获得数据库中每个潜在参与者的知情同意，而只是允许个人选择退出。除非冰岛人主动选择退出数据库，否则其医疗信息都将成为数据库的一部分，而该公司最终将凭借这些数据进行获利。因此，基因组数据库既成了资本逻辑与权力逻辑追求共同利益而交错融合的产物，也成了生物资本主义工具性的具体展现。

(II) Under the collusion between the logic of capital and the logic of power, the inherent “salvific” nature of the life sciences continuously deepens and develops into the redemptive quality of biocapitalism, seeking legitimacy for the extraction of surplus value.

（二）在资本逻辑与权力逻辑的合谋下，生命科学天生所具有的“拯救”性不断深化发展成为生物资本主义的救赎性，为剩余价值的剥削探寻合理性。

1. The fusion of the logic of capital and the logic of power effectively amplifies the “salvific” characteristic inherent in the life sciences, further developing it into the redemptive quality of biocapitalism.

1. 资本逻辑与权力逻辑的交融有效放大了生命科学本身所具有的“拯救”特性，使之进一步发展为生物资本主义的救赎性。

Pearce argues that in the era of biocapitalism, an increasingly strong belief is forming within capitalist countries: both capital and power increasingly believe that the continuous development of biocapitalism will ultimately enable their country to achieve the status of a global economic power. Consequently, they continuously utilize market rules and the government’s public power to develop biocapitalism in hopes of dominating the highly competitive global economy. After extensive fieldwork, Rajan discovered that these biotechnology companies, which rely on futures investment and capital operations, increasingly tend to maintain a “pseudo-religious ideology” that links the success of life science technology research with the salvation of the nation. Specifically, this “pseudo-religious ideology” is constructed at the intersection of life science research and national security guarantees, casting a vague political veil over science. Beneath this veil, biocapitalism, based on a discourse system of technological messianism and nationalism, roots its exploitation of biological resources in the redemptive salvation narratives unique to the life sciences. This “pseudo-religious ideology” also attempts to make both biotechnology practitioners and ordinary citizens of the country believe that, with the development of biocapitalism, not only will the national economy gain a powerful new engine, but it will also “bring about products full of strong nationalist discourse, such as security, territorial hegemony, and citizenship rights,” jointly supporting the redemptive quality of biocapitalism.

皮尔斯认为，在生物资本主义时代，资本主义国家内部正在形成一种越来越强烈的信念：即资本方与权力方都越来越相信生物资本主义的不断发展最终将使本国取得全球经济强国地位，因而不断利用市场规则与政府的公共权力发展生物资本主义以期在高度竞争的全球经济中占据主导地位。拉詹在经过长时间的实践考察后发现，这些依赖于期货投资和资本运作的生物技术公司越来越倾向于保持一种将生命科学技术研究的成功与拯救国家联系在一起的“伪宗教意识形态”。具体而言，这种“伪宗教意识形态”构建在生命科学研究与国家安全保障的交叉点，并给科学蒙上了一层模糊不清的政治面纱。在这层面纱下，生物资本主义以技术救世主义和民族主义的话语体系为基础，让其对生物资源的开发植根于生命科学所特有的充满救赎性的救世故事中。这种“伪宗教意识形态”还试图使生物技术从业人员与本国普通公民都相信，随着生物资本主义的发展，不但国家经济发展会得到一个强有力的新引擎，而且还会“带来安全、领土霸权和公民权等充满着强有力民族主义话语感的产物”，共同支撑起生物资本主义的救赎性。

2. “Capital” and “power” utilize the redemptive quality of biocapitalism and label it with “national interest” and patriotism, seeking universal legitimacy for the exploitation and expansion of biocapitalism.

2.“资本”与“权力”利用生物资本主义的救赎性并将之打上“国家利益”与爱国主义的标签，为生物资本主义的剥削与扩张寻求普遍的合理性。

With the continuous development of biocapitalism, capitalist countries have gradually incorporated the goal of achieving advances in the life sciences into their national security strategies. This shift not only greatly enhances the subjective initiative of biotechnology research but also, while granting it legitimacy for development at the national level, gives rise to a “salvationist” ideology, whose typical manifestations are mostly found in the production sites of biocapitalism, such as biomedical research laboratories. Analyzing biotechnology laboratories in India, Rajan discovered that these laboratories generally combine “highly personalized stories of individual motivation, national calling, and human benefit with the structural salvationism inherent in the market, science, or the state.” This combination “integrates the responsibility of saving lives into corporate interests, and, in India’s case, enables a ‘Third World’ country to leap into becoming a ‘global player.’” The power logic implicit in biocapitalism, to a considerable extent, stamps scientific research in biotechnology and the continuous development of the market for bioscience products with the labels of “national interest” and “national glory,” and reshapes citizens’ values through the logic of capital—that is, the neoliberal ideology and the belief system of the superiority of advanced capitalist countries. By means similar to the reshaping of values in India, capitalist countries can further increase political investment in the development of biotechnology to avoid being disadvantaged in fierce international competition, thereby continuously developing biocapitalism through the interaction of the logic of capital and the logic of power.

伴随着生物资本主义的不断发展，资本主义国家逐渐将取得生命科学进步的目标囊括进国家安全战略之中。这一转变不但大大增强了生物技术研究的主观能动性，还使其在获得了国家层面发展合理性的同时，催生了一种“救世主义”思想，其典型表现多存在于生物资本主义的生产基地中，如生物医学研究实验室。拉詹在分析印度的生物技术实验室时发现，这些实验室普遍将“个人动机、国家召唤和人类利益的高度个性化故事与市场、科学或国家固有的结构性救世主义”结合在一起，这一结合将“拯救生命的责任融入公司利益中，就印度而言，使一个‘第三世界’国家一跃成为‘全球玩家’”。生物资本主义中所暗含的权力逻辑在相当程度上使生物技术的科研工作、生物科学产品市场的不断发展都打上了“国家利益”“国家荣耀”的标签，并通过资本逻辑即新自由主义意识形态和发达资本主义国家优越主义的信仰体系重塑了公民的价值观念。借助类似于印度价值观念重塑的手段，资本主义国家可以进一步提高对生物技术的政治性发展投资，来避免其在国际间激烈的竞争中处于不利地位，在资本逻辑与权力逻辑的相互作用中使生物资本主义不断发展。

III. The Biological Interpretation of Neoliberalism and the New Imperialism

三、新自由主义与新帝国主义的生物化演绎

Biocapitalism must assume the dual tasks of capitalist power expansion and capital growth. Pearce points out that the birth of biocapitalism is related to “the removal of restrictive barriers in markets and labor through government, military, and corporate intervention,” and that it “originates from a series of complex relationships between scientific and technological research and development and neoliberal practices in economic development.” It can be seen that biocapitalism emerged in the process of capitalist countries’ shift toward neoliberal policies and subsequently flourished. While finding new space for the survival of capitalism, it has also, due to the influence of neoliberal policies, created greater exploitation and developmental imbalances. On the other hand, as the monopolistic nature of biotechnology continues to strengthen and its integration with power institutions grows ever tighter, new imperialist forms such as bio-imperialism and biocolonialism have already emerged.

生物资本主义需要承担起资本主义权力扩张与资本增长的双重任务。皮尔斯指出，生物资本主义的诞生与“通过政府、军事和企业干预来消除市场和劳动力方面的限制性壁垒”有关，其“源于科学技术研究与经济发展的新自由主义实践之间存在的一系列复杂关系”。可以看出，生物资本主义产生于资本主义国家向新自由主义政策转向的过程中，并随之蓬勃发展。其在为资本主义的存续找到新空间的同时，也由于新自由主义政策的影响而造成了更大的剥削性与发展不平衡性。另一方面，由于生物技术垄断性不断增强，与权力部门之间结合日趋紧密，已经产生了诸如生物帝国主义（Bio-imperialism）和生物殖民主义（Biocolonialism）等新帝国主义形式。

(1) The development of biocapitalism follows the inherent logic of capital, and under the influence of neoliberal policies, capital extends its tentacles into the realms of human and natural life in order to extract more surplus value, creating new exploitation and uneven development globally.

（一）生物资本主义的发展遵循着资本的固有逻辑，并且在新自由主义政策的影响下，资本为了榨取更多剩余价值而将触手伸到人类和自然生命领域，造成了全球新的剥削与不平衡发展。

With the continuous development of biotechnology and the increasing attention humans pay to their own lifespan and health, fields related to biotechnology have become the next investment hotspot most anticipated by various capitals. Due to the “inherent monopolistic” characteristics of the biotechnology sector—high investment and high barriers to entry—capital investment in it often achieves a “kill two birds with one stone” effect: not only does the bioeconomy develop rapidly, yielding huge returns on investment, but it can also further cultivate related enterprises into one of the capital providers of biocapitalism, continuously expanding their own technological advantages in biotechnology, thereby further strengthening the monopoly of biocapital. For example, before the advent of the era of biocapitalism, the major chemical and pharmaceutical companies in Western societies each held a dominant position in their respective fields. However, with the influx of large amounts of capital into the biotechnology sector in the early 1980s, today only a few multinational corporations remain, “effectively controlling every link in the world’s grain and pharmaceutical production.” As monopolization increases, this community of capital and power, biocapitalism, like previous forms of monopoly capitalism, has intensified the exploitation of people and increased the imbalance in social development. Joseph Dumit, in exploring the relationship between personal health and risk, traces the formation of the “risk concept” in pharmaceutical companies. He finds that these companies no longer define themselves as traditional pharmaceutical companies as before, but instead choose to define themselves as “financial companies.” Dumit believes that part of the reason for this shift is that these companies’ understanding of “health” has been influenced by the neoliberalized concept of individual “risk”: the human body must always be defined as an inherently pathological body that always needs to be strengthened or improved, rather than as an inherently healthy body, thereby creating in people a constant feeling of being “at risk.” Similar to the “capitalization” shift in the concept of pharmaceutical companies, as biotechnology, whose discourse is controlled by capital, continues to develop, this technology will increasingly reveal its exploitative and unjust side. Rajan, in investigating a research hospital in Mumbai, India, found that this private company was conducting pharmacogenomic research for Western pharmaceutical companies, but most of the subjects participating in the research were poor or unemployed people. They did not hesitate to use their own bodies as experimental fields for biotechnology research in exchange for meager compensation. Ironically, most of these research subjects will not benefit from any newly developed therapies, because they cannot afford the high treatment costs. If biocapitalism is allowed to develop wildly under the influence of neoliberal policies, exploitation and injustice will inevitably intensify.

随着生物技术的不断发展和人类对自身寿命与健康关注度的不断提高，生物技术相关领域成了各路资本最为期待的下一个投资热点。由于生物技术领域所特有的高投入、高门槛的“先天垄断性”，使得资本对其投资时往往可以取得“一石二鸟”的效果：不但使生物经济得以飞速发展从而取得巨量的投资回报，还可进一步将相关企业培养成生物资本主义的资本提供方之一，使其不断扩大自身的生物技术优势，从而进一步强化生物资本的垄断性。例如，在生物资本主义时代来临前，西方社会的各主要化学与生物制药公司都能在各自领域占据一定的主导地位。但随着20世纪80年代初期大量资本涌入生物技术部门，如今全球只剩下少数的几家跨国公司“有效地控制世界粮食和制药生产的每一个环节”。随着垄断性的不断提高，生物资本主义这一资本与权力的共同体也如先前的各种垄断资本主义形态一样提高了对人的剥削，加大了社会的发展不平衡性。约瑟夫·杜米特（Joseph Dumit）在探讨个人健康与风险之间的关系时追溯了制药公司“风险概念”的形成。他发现，这些公司不再像以前一样将自己定义为传统医药公司，而选择把自己定义为“金融公司”。杜米特认为，发生这种转变的部分原因是这些公司对于“健康”的理解被新自由主义化的个人“风险”概念所影响：要将人的身体始终定义为一个总是需要得到加强或改善的内在病态的身体，而不是定义为一个内在健康的身体，从而使人形成始终“处于危险之中”的感觉。与制药公司观念上的“资本化”转变相似，随着被资本掌握话语权的生物技术不断发展，这种科技将越来越展现出其剥削性与不公性的一面。拉詹在调查印度孟买一家研究医院时发现，这家私人公司在为西方制药公司进行药物基因组学研究，但大多数参与研究的对象都是穷苦人士或失业人员。他们不惜将自己的身体作为生物技术研究的试验田，以换得微薄的报酬，令人感到讽刺的是，这些研究对象中的大多数将不会从任何新开发的疗法中受益，因为这些研究对象并不能负担得起高昂的治疗费用。如果放任生物资本主义在新自由主义政策的影响下不断野蛮发展，剥削与不公的情况势必将愈演愈烈。

(2) Competition in the stage of biocapitalism has gone beyond technological competition at the corporate or sectoral level, becoming a hegemonic competition in biology between nations, forming a bio-imperialism that colonizes and plunders the realms of human and natural life.

（二）生物资本主义阶段的竞争已超出公司或部门维度的科技竞争，变成国与国之间进行对抗的生物霸权竞争，形成了对人类和自然生命领域进行殖民与掠夺的生物帝国主义。

After bio-capitalism enters the stage of imperialism, the implantation of the ideology that biotechnology can “save the nation” and bring “national glory” deepens further. In order to defend so-called national interests, the bio-empire, while vigorously developing its own biotechnology, actively expands its global bio-resource industrial chain, intensifies the plunder of bio-resources worldwide, and reaps on a global scale the surplus value produced by bio-laborers. For example, the Human Genome Project has been called by some scholars a form of bio-colonialism: in the case of the Guaymí people, an indigenous group in Panama, a 26-year-old Guaymí woman had some cells taken from her cheek through the genetic sampling procedures of the Human Genome Project. After testing, it was discovered that these cells carried a virus capable of stimulating antibody production, which might have commercial profit potential in treating leukemia and AIDS. Subsequently, a large bio-enterprise, for its own private gain, privatized the woman’s body cells and applied for a patent, but the profits generated were not returned to those who provided the original resources; instead, they flowed into the company’s own pockets. If the above case is insufficient to reveal the cruelty of bio-imperialism’s exploitation of human life, then the following example, known as “bio-piracy,” will provide ample and bloody proof. In this transnational transaction chain, Israeli entrepreneurs and South African doctors are linked with donors from Brazil, Turkey, or the Philippines. At one end of the chain are these organ donors, who give up their kidneys in exchange for compensation ranging from $1,000 to $10,000; at the other end are North American patients awaiting kidney transplants, who will pay up to $200,000 for that kidney. Various forms of organized crime—such as human and organ trafficking, prostitution, migrant smuggling, and labor servitude—connect financial capital with the most advanced biotechnology, global poverty, and the bio-commodification within the global market. Bio-imperialism realizes all the above criminal forms through a globalized money-laundering network and reaps billions of dollars in profits, yet it creates millions of people living under this “bio-slavery,” over 70 percent of whom are women and girls. Bio-imperialism, in this cruel and bloody exploitation of life, continuously develops and enhances its own monopoly attributes, and by relying on this monopoly position, it continues to squeeze the surplus value of bio-laborers worldwide. This cycle repeats itself, constituting the operational logic of bio-imperialism.

生物资本主义进入帝国主义阶段后，生物技术可以“拯救国家”并带来“国家荣耀”的意识形态植入更加深入。为了捍卫所谓国家利益，生物帝国在大力发展本国生物技术的同时，积极扩展其全球生物资源产业链，加大全球范围内的生物资源掠夺，并在全球范围内大肆收割生物劳工生产的剩余价值。例如，人类基因组计划（Human Genome Project）就被某些学者称为一种生物殖民主义：在巴拿马土著人种瓜伊米人的案例中，一名26岁的瓜伊米女性被人类基因组计划的遗传抽样程序从她的脸颊部位取得了一些细胞。经过检测后发现，这些细胞携带了一种病毒，该病毒能刺激抗体的产生，在治疗白血病和艾滋病方面可能会有商业利润。随后，一家大型生物企业为了一己私利，将该女性的身体细胞私有化并申请了专利，但产生的利润并没有返还给这些提供原始资源的人，而是流入了该公司自己的口袋中。如果说上面的案例不足以看出生物帝国主义对人类生命剥削的残忍之处，那么下面这个被称作“生物海盗”的例子将会给予充分且血腥的证明。在这个跨国运作的交易链条中，以色列的企业家和南非的医生与巴西、土耳其或菲律宾的捐赠者被串连了起来。链条的一端是这些器官捐赠者，他们献出自己的肾脏以换取1000至1万美元不等的报酬，链条的另一端是等待肾脏移植的北美病人，他们将会为这颗肾脏支付高达20万美元的费用。各种各样的有组织犯罪如人口和器官贩卖、卖淫、偷运移民、奴役劳工等将金融资本与最高端的生物技术、世界性的贫困问题以及全球市场范围内的生物商品化联系在一起。生物帝国主义通过全球化的洗钱网络实现了以上所有的犯罪形式并获得了数10亿美元的利润，却造就了数百万生活在这种“生物奴隶制”下的人，其中超过七成是妇女和女孩。生物帝国主义在这种对生命残酷且血腥的剥削中不断发展、提高着自身的垄断属性，并凭借着这种垄断地位继续榨取全球范围内生物劳工的剩余价值，如此循环往复，构成了生物帝国主义的运行逻辑。

IV. Concluding Remarks

四、余论

Viewed from the perspective of theoretical logic, the critical research on bio-capitalism by foreign left-wing scholars enables us to achieve a three-dimensional depiction of bio-capitalism and to discern its hidden forms of exploitation and the brutal essence of its plunder. Overall, the origin of bio-capitalism is not simply the application of biotechnology in social production, but rather the result of capital’s continuous rent-seeking from biotechnology. The combination of the two produces transformative effects on social practices and social relations; it is both an advanced form within the capitalist economic model and a high stage of capitalist development. The many contradictions and problems of modernity brought about by bio-capitalism have their root cause in the fact that the logic of capital and the logic of power it manipulates have co-opted and controlled biotechnology, causing biotechnology to serve the reproduction of capital accumulation and capitalist relations of production, thereby becoming a profit-making tool for a small number of bourgeois interest groups. However, surveying existing research results, most foreign left-wing scholars, constrained by their positional biases and theoretical limitations, remain at the phenomenal level in their critique of bio-capitalism, without inquiring into the deeper social-structural issues hidden behind the phenomena. Correspondingly, the solutions they propose inevitably fall into the shackles of “reformism” and the illusion of “utopia.” In fact, following the critical path opened up by foreign left-wing scholars, it is not difficult to discover that the entire process of the emergence and development of bio-capitalism does not exceed the theoretical horizon of Marxism. Therefore, in-depth research on bio-capitalism should rightly possess the theoretical self-awareness of Marxism’s presence. Only by truly making good use of the sharp “scalpel” of Marxist political economy critique can we touch the inner core of bio-capitalism and, on this basis, form scientific solutions and coping strategies.

基于理论逻辑观之，国外左翼学者关于生物资本主义的批判性研究使我们得以实现对生物资本主义的立体描绘，并洞悉其隐匿的剥削形式和残酷的掠夺实质。整体来看，生物资本主义的缘起并非单纯是生物科技在社会生产中的应用，更是资本向生物科技不断寻租的结果，二者的结合产生了对社会实践和社会关系的变革效应，既是资本主义经济模式中的先进形式，亦是资本主义发展的高级阶段。生物资本主义带来的诸多现代性矛盾和问题，根本症结在于资本逻辑及其所操纵的权力逻辑对生物科技进行了裹挟和控制，导致生物科技服务于资本增殖及资本主义生产关系的再生产，进而成为少数资产阶级利益集团的牟利手段。但综观现有研究成果，多数国外左翼学者囿于立场偏向和理论局限，对于生物资本主义的批判尚且停留在现象层面，并未追问隐藏在现象背后的深层次社会结构问题，相应地解决方案也必然陷入“改良主义”的桎梏和“乌托邦式”的幻境。事实上，沿着国外左翼学者开辟的批判进路，我们不难发现，生物资本主义生成和发展的整个过程都没有超出马克思主义的理论视域。因此，对于生物资本主义的深层次研究理应具有马克思主义在场的理论自觉，唯有真正用好马克思主义政治经济学批判这把锐利的“手术刀”，方能触及生物资本主义的内里，并在此基础上形成科学的解决方案和应对策略。

From the perspective of practical logic, due to the influence and shaping of bio-capitalism, the world has entered an era in which biological threats are increasingly complex and diverse, and the field of biotechnology has also become an important arena for great-power competition. China is at a critical moment of embarking on a new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country and advancing toward the second centenary goal. [5]5 The second centenary goal refers to the goal of building China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful by the middle of the 21st century, the centenary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. The importance and urgency of comprehensively and accurately grasping the process, manifestations, and essence of biotechnology development in the first-mover modernized countries, promoting the development of China’s biotechnology, and ensuring national bio-security have already become prominent. Looking to the future, as an important force influencing the development of global biotechnology and bio-governance systems, what impact will bio-capitalism have on global bio-security? Will it produce new development directions as the wave of deglobalization continues to advance? Can it ultimately initiate a transformation toward bio-socialism? The answers to these practical questions still depend on sustained attention and in-depth reflection by domestic and foreign experts and scholars on issues related to bio-capitalism. (Notes omitted)

在实践逻辑视域中，由于生物资本主义的影响和形塑，世界已步入生物威胁日益复杂化、多样化的时代，生物技术领域也成为大国博弈的重要赛场。我国正处于迈上全面建设社会主义现代化国家新征程、向第二个百年奋斗目标进军的关键时刻，全面准确把握先发现代化国家生物科技发展的过程、表征和实质，推动我国生物科技发展，确保国家生物安全，其重要性和急迫性已然凸显。面向未来，生物资本主义作为影响全球生物科技和生物治理体系发展的重要力量，其将对全球生物安全产生何种影响？是否会随着逆全球化浪潮的不断推进而产生新的发展方向？最终能否向生物社会主义发起转变？对于这些现实问题的回答尚有赖于国内外专家学者对生物资本主义相关问题进行持续关注与深入思考。（注释略）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑