Dr. Anmol Kapoor, MD, a cardiologist, healthcare innovator, and BioAro founder, advocates excluding life sciences from U.S. tariffs. He highlights the U.S.-Canada healthcare interdependence and warns that tariffs could disrupt medical innovation, increase costs, and delay treatment access. Kapoor stresses the need for stronger cross-border collaboration, elimination of interprovincial trade barriers, and domestic investment in life sciences. He also underscores the risks of AI restrictions, manufacturing relocations, and brain drain. While hopeful tariffs are temporary, he warns of long-term industry consequences. Kapoor urges policymakers to prioritize human lives over economic policies that hinder medical progress.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Dr. Anmol Kapoor, MD. He is a distinguished cardiologist, healthcare innovator, and entrepreneur who advocates for excluding life sciences from U.S. tariffs.

As the founder of BioAro, he leads advancements in genomic precision health, nuclear imaging isotopes, and AI-driven medical breakthroughs. A key figure in the Canadian life sciences sector, Dr. Kapoor collaborates with high-complexity laboratories in the U.S., particularly in California, emphasizing the deep interconnection between the two countries’ healthcare systems. Thank you so much for joining me today. I appreciate your time.

Dr. Anmol Kapoor: Thank you for having me.

Jacobsen: Why should life sciences be exempt from U.S. tariffs?

Kapoor: At the time of publication, this discussion may be more relevant than ever. Life sciences should be excluded from tariffs because they impact human life directly. There should be no debate about placing tariffs on medical advancements that save lives. Access to healthcare is a fundamental human right.

The best healthcare should be available, enabling longer, healthier lives. If we begin taxing life sciences, we create barriers to access. Restrictions on medical innovation and distribution don’t just affect one country-they create a ripple effect globally. If my neighbour’s house is on fire, I will feel the heat too. Similarly, if my community faces a healthcare crisis-an epidemic or pandemic-it affects everyone.

No one can isolate themselves from healthcare challenges. Canada, the U.S., and the global medical community are deeply interconnected.

One major area is research and academia. Universities, clinicians, and medical scientists in North America collaborate with biotech firms and pharmaceutical companies to develop life-saving treatments. These partnerships transcend national borders. A research breakthrough in Canada could lead to a new drug developed in the U.S., or a clinical trial in the U.S. could help refine a therapy that benefits patients worldwide. The question isn’t about where a company is headquartered-it’s about ensuring the free flow of scientific knowledge that drives medical progress.

It is seamless. When ideas emerge, they are implemented immediately. However, imposing taxes or tariffs on them could harm them.

The second aspect is manufacturing, which is deeply intertwined. Some facilities are in Canada, some in the U.S., and different parts of the manufacturing process occur in different locations. One part of a medical device may be produced in Canada, another in the U.S., and another overseas. These processes are interconnected.

If you impose a tax on one side, the other will respond with tariffs. Ultimately, Americans and Canadians will bear the financial burden- effectively paying a tax on their lives.

So, the first is R&D, and the second is manufacturing.

The third issue is medical isotopes. Nearly all medical isotopes used in Canada-particularly for cardiac patients- come from the U.S. We do not have domestic production. We used to be an exporter, with the Chalk River nuclear reactor producing these critical isotopes. However, that facility was shut down, and we never revived it. Canada chose not to reinvest in this area, leaving us dependent on U.S. suppliers.

There are European sources, but they represent a small supply chain with high global demand. As a result, Canada is now a newt importer of medical isotopes, relying on the U.S. for supply.

Who will ultimately pay the price if counter-tariffs are imposed on life sciences products?

Canadians.

No special government billing code compensates for these tariffs in clinical settings. Canada does not have any domestic manufacturing of imaging equipment, such as MRIs and CT scans. We rely on American companies.

Yes, some of these companies manufacture in China, Israel, or other regions. Still, both countries bear the cost. Many software technologies essential for MRI and other imaging evaluations are developed through U.S.-Canadian innovation partnerships. Who will ultimately pay if tariffs and taxes are imposed on these technologies?

We will- through human lives. Delays in diagnosis. Delays in access to care. Increased healthcare costs. Healthcare systems in Canada and the U.S. are already under immense strain. Demand is skyrocketing. Instead of increasing tariffs and taxes, we should work together to lower costs.

At a time when we should be collaborating to make healthcare more affordable and accessible, imposing tariffs is equivalent to endangering human lives. That is wrong. That is unethical. It should not be done.

Jacobsen: Ethical, economic, and diplomatic frameworks are all built upon fundamental principles. Medical doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, committing not to harm. The United Nations bases its geopolitical and diplomatic efforts on universal human rights and consensus-building principles. In economics, the central concept is trade-offs. What are we willing to trade for innovation and healthcare access? If the price of tariffs is human lives, is it worth it?What is the opportunity cost of prioritizing one sector over another? Regarding life sciences and tariffs, beyond the critical impact on human well-being, are there other sectors that should also be exempt from tariffs? If we broaden the argument to include additional industries, could this make the case for life sciences exemptions more substantive? Is there another sector that could be paired with life sciences to strengthen the overall argument?

Kapoor: Absolutely. One major sector is pharmaceutical manufacturing, specifically Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). APIs are the chemical components of medications, and their production depends on a complex network of chemical manufacturing facilities across North America.

These chemicals are essential for drug formulation. The packaging of medications, vaccines, and vials also relies on plastics and specialized materials, which tariffs could negatively impact. The entire pharmaceutical supply chain will be affected if tariffs are imposed on any of these components.

Beyond medications, we must also consider medical supplies and devices- critical items for patient care. This includes:

• Medical gloves
• Wearable health devices (e.g., heart monitors, blood pressure monitors, insulin pumps)
• Pacemakers
• Diabetes consumables (e.g., test strips, glucose monitors)
• Cancer treatments (e.g., chemotherapy drugs)

You cannot isolate one sector of life sciences- everything is interconnected. Manufacturing, packaging, and consumables are all part of the same ecosystem.

If tariffs are imposed, what happens?

• Medication costs will increase, making life-saving drugs inaccessible for many patients.
• Diabetic patients may struggle to afford glucose test strips and insulin pumps.
• Heart disease patients could lose access to pacemakers.
• Cancer patients might face higher costs for chemotherapy.

The repercussions are enormous-affecting millions of lives.

Jacobsen: AI-driven medical technologies are increasingly important in global healthcare. Could tariffs slow the development of these technologies? If so, how would that impact healthcare systems in the United States and Canada? Would this create economic, healthcare, and public health consequences-perhaps even exacerbating existing cost and accessibility issues?

Kapoor: Definitely. AI-powered medical technology is revolutionizing healthcare. It is helping to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and bridge gaps in healthcare access. Tariffs could stifle AI-driven diagnostics, personalized medicine, and genomic research innovation.

Take genomics, for example. BioAro is one of the leading global companies in genomics. Why does this matter? Because genomic medicine is the future- it allows for:

• Early disease detection
• Precision medicine tailored to individuals
• More effective treatment strategies

Suppose tariffs slow progress in AI-driven medical research. In that case, it would have a ripple effect across the entire healthcare system. This is especially problematic for the U.S., where healthcare costs are already a major issue. Though somewhat insulated, Canada would also feel the economic and healthcare consequences.

At a time when we should be investing in AI-driven healthcare innovations, imposing tariffs would be a step backward- increasing costs, delaying access, and ultimately harming patients.

Because of the PanOmiQ technology we developed, we are currently the only company globally with this advanced computing power and proprietary AI algorithms. This technology was built entirely in Canada, enabling us to analyze vast amounts of sequencing data from DNA, microbiomics, and epigenomics in real time.

No other company or country has this real-time whole genome analysis sequencing level. It typically takes days to weeks, sometimes even months, for patients to receive clinical reports from genetic sequencing.

However, our technology eliminates those delays, allowing instant genomic insights.

Our AI-driven genomics platform and advanced software algorithms were built locally in Calgary. If tariffs are imposed, this would have serious consequences, especially since American patients and researchers rely on fast genomics data for:

• Cancer diagnostics
• Dementia research
• Heart disease screening
• Pharmacogenomic analysis for personalized medicine

The new FDA Director has emphasized the need for faster adoption of new science to provide rapid access to innovative healthcare solutions. However, if tariffs are implemented, this will negatively impact the U.S. in several ways:

1. Higher sequencing costs- making advanced genomic testing more expensive.
2. Delayed access to care- slowing down diagnoses and treatment plans.

Today, labs can use PanOmiQ technology without additional taxes. But if tariffs are imposed, they will face two bad choices:

• Option A: Pay the extra tariff and pass the cost to patients with high medical expenses.
• Option B: Avoid AI-powered technology, revert to manual methods, and delay diagnoses, which could potentially lead to medical complications later on.

With the power of AI and genomics, we can revolutionize healthcare in America. AI is not just about cost-efficiency- it helps people live longer, healthier lives.

Jacobsen: AI-driven genomics is becoming a cornerstone of modern healthcare. If these tariffs delay AI adoption, what are the broader implications for genomics and the entire medical ecosystem?

Kapoor: There are two major impacts: Combining AI, genomics, and IoT (Internet of Things) data is already transforming medicine. AI processes massive amounts of wearable health data from devices like smartwatches, heart monitors, and glucose sensors- all integrated into real-time decision-making systems.

If tariffs increase costs, it will slow adoption at the hospital level and increase expenses for patients. Many AI models in Canada and the U.S. are trained on shared scientific data. AI models developed in the U.S. often rely on Canadian datasets and vice versa. If tariffs disrupt this collaboration, it will severely impact:

• Medical research
• Drug discovery
• AI-driven diagnostics

A prime example is electronic health records (EHRs).

Most Canadian hospitals use American-built health record systems, such as:

• Epic (used in Alberta, costing over $1 billion)
• Cerner (used in British Columbia and Ontario)

These systems are already considered outdated by today’s standards. They lack AI-driven functionality, making them inefficient in clinical decision-making.

By failing to update healthcare AI integration, we are slowing medical progress in Canada and across North America.

This is why tariffs on life sciences and AI-driven healthcare are a fundamental mistake- they don’t just increase costs; they set back medical innovation, reduce access to critical healthcare, and ultimately harm patients.

Due to compatibility issues, the datasets generated in Canada are often difficult to integrate with current AI models. As a result, billions of dollars are spent in Canada, but much of that money ultimately flows back to American companies.

Canada has an opportunity to develop our own AI-driven health record systems- or even create some of the best in the world- so we can be self-reliant. Much of our healthcare data is transferred to and accessed by American systems. If we establish our AI-powered ecosystem, this data could remain in Canada, enhancing domestic innovation while reducing reliance on foreign-built platforms.

So, while tariffs create chaos, they also present opportunities. We must identify the right opportunities and leverage AI as an enabler. It is up to us how we choose to use AI.

Tariffs can have a negative impact, but they also force us to innovate. If we invest in our healthcare AI infrastructure, Canada could become less dependent on systems like Epic and Cerner, creating a stronger, self-sustaining ecosystem for healthcare technology.

Jacobsen: With trade policies under the Trump administration and this interview occurring on February 28, the extension on tariffs expires tomorrow, formally imposing new trade barriers across multiple sectors. Beyond just tariffs, what alternative strategies could protect life sciences from broader economic barriers?

Kapoor: The best protection is collaboration.

Canadian and American life sciences companies have a long history of working together. Now is the time to strengthen that relationship even further.

We already have robust academic collaborations across universities in North America. Industry partnerships between Canadian and U.S. biotech firms are also well-established. Now is the moment to reinforce those ties.

That is the most effective way to counteract tariffs.

Suppose we allow isolationist policies to disrupt this life-saving supply chain. In that case, the consequences will be severe for both Canada and the U.S.:

• Rising costs for medications, supplies, and diagnostics
• Delays in access to medical isotopes (critical for cancer treatments)
• Increased costs for AI-driven diagnostics

We must intensify cross-border collaboration, invest in each other’s life sciences sectors, and grow the industry together.

The life sciences sector should be completely exempt from tariffs for humanitarian and economic reasons.

Jacobsen: Could you provide a historical example where international collaboration in life sciences was prioritized over economic restrictions?

Kapoor: Absolutely. Look at the COVID-19 pandemic. At the height of the crisis, the United States did not have an mRNA vaccine of its own. The technology came from Europe. European researchers had already developed the foundation for mRNA-based vaccines.

The vaccine was manufactured in the U.S., but the scientific breakthrough originated elsewhere. Imagine if Europe had imposed strict trade barriers or tariffs on that technology. If they had said:

“We will not allow you to access this innovation unless you pay more.”

That would have been disastrous. But they did not do that because it was a global health emergency. Yes, companies profited from the vaccine, but at its core, scientific collaboration saved lives.

Another example is insulin. When Canadian scientist Frederick Banting discovered insulin, he refused to patent it for profit. He believed that insulin should be accessible to all people and not controlled by a single corporation for financial gain.

That is the right model for life sciences. It is about humanity first, not profit. Life sciences must be exempt from tariffs. It is not just about economics-it is about saving lives.

We need to show a bigger heart. I ask our American friends to extend the same generosity toward the life sciences sector. Do not even consider imposing tariffs. If tariffs are in place, remove them- because lives depend on them.

Jacobsen: What ethical considerations should policymakers consider when crafting trade policies that affect the life sciences sector? I’m not talking about political appeals to leaders or calls for scientific collaboration- though those are important in global geopolitics. I mean policymakers- the people who set the tone for trade regulations.

Kapoor: From a policy perspective, there are multiple ways to support the life sciences sector. One crucial step is to loosen intellectual property (IP) laws to allow university research commercialization. Many groundbreaking technologies originate in academic institutions across North America. Yet, due to restrictive IP regulations, startups often struggle to bring these innovations to market. Policymakers should ensure that startups can take risks and test the market with these advancements.

Life sciences startups also need easier access to capital to develop new drugs, software technologies, and AI-driven healthcare models. To support innovation, policymakers should streamline funding opportunities for early-stage companies, making it easier for them to secure investment and scale.

Additionally, regulatory sandboxes can provide startups with a controlled environment to test new healthcare models without taking on excessive financial burdens. These IT and medical innovation sandboxes allow companies to:

• Experiment safely in the healthcare sector.
• Refine technologies before large-scale deployment.
• Reduce costs while improving patient outcomes.

Further, policymakers should offer better tax credits for companies investing in research and development (R&D). Allowing businesses to reinvest their earnings into expansion, innovation, and scaling projects will strengthen the industry and enhance global competitiveness.

North America lags in pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing, creating a strategic vulnerability as most life sciences companies rely on overseas production. Policies should incentivize domestic manufacturing by encouraging:

• “Made in Canada” and “Made in America” initiatives.
• Local procurement of medical technology.

By investing in local manufacturing, Canada and the U.S. can:

• Retain scientific talent.
• Build a sustainable ecosystem.
• Reduce dependency on foreign supply chains.

Startups in the life sciences sector follow a cycle similar to students in education. They need the right environment to learn, grow, and innovate. They also require mentorship, education, and competition to succeed. The best ideas should rise to the top only if policy frameworks support their development.

Some countries are already investing heavily in the life sciences sector. Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, for example, aims to position the country as a global leader in:

• Precision healthcare
• Multi-omics research
• Real-time genomic analysis

North America must take similar steps to enhance innovation, support startups, and strengthen life sciences infrastructure to remain competitive.

They recognize the potential of life sciences and are moving aggressively to lead in biotechnology and medical innovation. Meanwhile, Canada has underinvested in life sciences compared to other sectors like energy and mining.

Policymakers must take life sciences seriously. They are not just an industry-they are a humanitarian necessity. Strong policies will drive economic growth and save lives.

The pandemic has shown us that we are vulnerable. We relied on masks and medical gowns from other countries. We found ourselves in a position where we were begging for essential supplies. That should never happen again. Canada and the United States have more than enough resources to manufacture these necessities domestically.

Jacobsen: You live in Alberta. I live in British Columbia. We often see stereotypes about our provinces- Alberta as “Canada’s Texas” and British Columbia as “Canada’s California.” A bunch of cowboys in Alberta, a bunch of hippies in B.C. These are stereotypes, but like most, they contain a grain of truth. That said, do you think different provincial and territorial strategies will be needed to mitigate the effects of these tariffs? While tariffs may apply across the board, their impact on business networks and industries varies from province to territory and territory to territory.

Kapoor: Absolutely. As Canadians, we need to think nationally about life sciences. If Canada wants to be a global leader in this sector, we must address one of our biggest domestic barriers- interprovincial trade restrictions. Currently, Canada operates with fragmented healthcare systems, which hurts us.

Medical data is not easily shared between provinces. Physicians face bureaucratic barriers when trying to practice across provincial lines. This creates inefficiencies and hinders innovation. Canada claims to have a universal healthcare system, but in reality, each province operates in its silo. Some aspects of healthcare in British Columbia are superior, while others in Alberta are stronger. From a cardiology perspective, Alberta’s system is more efficient. We can perform more outpatient procedures than our counterparts in British Columbia, which means patients in B.C. often experience delays in care.

I see where the cowboy vs. hippie stereotype comes from. Albertans tend to be entrepreneurial, risk-takers, and innovators. That does not mean British Columbians are not, but restrictive policies often stifle innovation in certain provinces. Life sciences startups face barriers that prevent them from growing, whether unnecessary regulations, slow licensing processes, or a lack of investment incentives. If there is one major policy shift Canada should prioritize, it is the elimination of interprovincial barriers.

If Europe- a continent with multiple languages, cultures, and political systems- can break down trade barriers between its provinces, Canada should be able to do the same. Canada has more restrictive trade barriers between its provinces than the European Union does between its member states. This is unacceptable.

It is time to implement a free trade agreement covering life sciences and other industries in Canada. This would unify our markets, allow talent to move freely, and accelerate innovation. That should be step one. Next, we must mobilize talent nationally and encourage cross-border collaboration between provinces.

Jacobsen: Will these tariffs impact specific areas within the life sciences sector more than others? With tariffs being implemented across the board, are there specific subfields within life sciences that will be severely impacted while others may experience minimal disruption?

Kapoor: It depends on which products are affected. If radioisotopes are included in the tariffs, that would be catastrophic. Canada does not produce radioisotopes for medical use- we import them entirely from the U.S. These isotopes are essential for cardiac imaging and cancer treatments. If tariffs make them more expensive or less accessible, it will harm patients.

We also do not manufacture medical devices in Canada. The vast majority of diagnostic and treatment devices- from MRI machines to pacemakers- come from American manufacturers. Some small-scale manufacturing is done in Europe, but it is nowhere near enough to replace U.S. imports.

Canada excels in software development for medical applications. We are leaders in AI-driven diagnostics, health data analytics, and medical software innovations. However, even in this area, we depend on U.S. data, computing infrastructure, and partnerships. If tariffs or other trade restrictions disrupt this collaboration, it will slow innovation and increase costs.

Ultimately, the effects will be devastating if these tariffs target critical medical imports. The worst-case scenario involves delays in medical procedures, increased costs for patients, and restricted access to life-saving treatments. That is why the life sciences sector must be exempt from tariffs- this is about human lives, not just economics.

The impact may be less severe in some areas, but it could be significant in medical diagnostics. Items like diabetic supplies, glucose monitors, home healthcare services, and essential medical equipment are largely manufactured in the U.S. and imported into Canada. If tariffs increase costs, we need to find alternative suppliers internationally- which is easier said than done, especially in medical manufacturing.

Pharmaceuticals will also be affected. Many brand-name drugs are manufactured in the U.S., and while Canada produces some generics, we still rely heavily on American manufacturers. Generics might remain stable, but branded medications could become more expensive, leading to supply chain issues. The difficulty is that everything in life sciences is interconnected- it’s hard to predict which areas will suffer most.

I hope we never reach a point where patients have to choose between diabetic medical supplies and home healthcare essentials due to budget cuts caused by tariffs. The entire sector is deeply intertwined, and restrictions on one area will inevitably ripple across the healthcare ecosystem.

Jacobsen: Is there any indication that these tariffs will at least be temporary if they do not include an exemption for life sciences? Could they last only for 2025 or remain in place until the next U.S. election cycle, when a new administration might lift them? Or do you think this is part of a longer-term pattern where the U.S. moves toward imposing broad tariffs across multiple industries, including life sciences?

Kapoor: I hope these tariffs are short-term. I hope they are primarily a political play, a negotiation tactic aimed at domestic audiences, and they do not escalate into lasting trade restrictions.

That said, even if tariffs are eventually lifted, they could still have long-term consequences. Companies that relocate manufacturing overseas in response to tariffs may not return unless significant tax incentives or policy shifts make it financially viable. A brain drain could also occur, with Canadian scientists and life sciences experts moving to countries with more favourable business environments. If that happens, rebuilding Canada’s position in the life sciences sector will take years.

Looking at historical precedent, during President Trump’s first term, tariffs were imposed but later adjusted or lifted as compromises were reached. If that pattern repeats, we could expect a similar outcome this time. I am optimistic that these restrictions will not become permanent, but the uncertainty damages the industry.

Jacobsen: Let’s hope for the best. That concludes all my questions for today, Dr. Kapoor. Thank you for your time- I truly appreciate it. It was great to meet you.

Kapoor: Thank you. It was great meeting you as well. I always try to be honest and insightful, and I hope I provided useful perspectives.