Executive Summary

The U.S. biotechnology (“biotech”) job market has grown into a critical and sizable component of the American economy, employing over 2.3 million workers as of 2023 and supporting an additional ~8 million jobs indirectly ( www.prnewswire.com). This research report provides an extensive examination of the biotech labor market in the United States as of October 2025, covering historical developments, current trends, and future outlook. Key findings include:

• Robust Long-Term Growth: Over the past two decades, biotech employment has consistently outpaced overall private sector job growth ( innovatebio.org). U.S. bioscience industry employment increased nearly 15% from 2019 to 2023, far above national job growth in that period ( www.prnewswire.com). In fact, life sciences research employment has risen about 79% in the last 20 years, compared to only ~8% growth for U.S. jobs overall ( www.bio-rad.com). This reflects strong demand for biotechnology’s innovative products and services.

• High Economic and Social Impact: The bioscience sector contributed an estimated $3.2 trillion in economic output in 2023 ( www.prnewswire.com). Biotech jobs are high-value and well-paid, with average wages often 50–100% higher than regional averages ( www.ncbiotech.org) ( www.axios.com). These roles are heavily STEM-oriented and require advanced skills – a majority of biotech positions demand postsecondary education or specialized training ( innovatebio.org). The industry’s innovations (e.g. vaccines, therapies, agricultural biotech) have major public health, environmental, and national security significance.

• Recent Boom and Correction (2020–2025): The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed a surge in biotech activity – the sector defied the 2020 economic downturn and continued hiring through the pandemic ( innovatebio.org). Record venture capital funding and public offerings in 2020–2021 fueled rapid company expansion and hiring. However, by 2022–2023 the market had cooled significantly. Funding tightened due to clinical trial setbacks and investor skepticism, leading to a 93% drop in biotech IPOs in 2022 vs 2021 ( www.axios.com). Small and mid-size biotechs in particular faced capital shortages, triggering layoffs and consolidation. National life sciences employment dipped slightly (only −0.8% from August 2022 to August 2024 ( www.cbre.com)) – a mild correction given the steep decline in biotech stock valuations and venture funding over that period.

• Current State (Late 2025): The biotech job market in 2025 is mixed, showing both resilience and fragility. Total U.S. life sciences employment reached a record high of ~2.1 million in March 2025 ( www.cbre.com), recovering from the 2023 dip, but growth is now sluggish. By mid-2025 hiring had slowed and employment actually pulled back slightly in Q2 2025 ( www.cbre.com). The unemployment rate for life and physical science occupations has risen to ~3.1% (April 2025) from under 1.7% a year prior ( www.cbre.com), indicating a loosening of what was a very tight labor market. Even leading hubs like Massachusetts are experiencing flat job growth (+0.1% in 2024) and some R&D job losses amid funding challenges ( www.axios.com). Nevertheless, overall employment remains near peak levels and core talent has largely been retained despite the downturn. Many firms are cautiously resuming hiring as market conditions stabilize.

• Geographic Hubs and Shifts: Biotech jobs are concentrated in a few major clusters, though nearly every state has some biotech presence ( www.prnewswire.com). Traditional hubs such as Boston-Cambridge (Massachusetts) and the ** San Francisco Bay Area (California)** lead in R&D talent and industry size ( www.cbre.com), with the Bay Area alone accounting for ~153,000 biotech jobs by mid-2023 ( www.axios.com). Other top clusters include the San Diego area, Los Angeles/Orange County, New York/New Jersey pharma corridor, and the Washington D.C.–Baltimore region ( www.cbre.com) ( www.cbre.com). Emerging hubs in states like North Carolina, Texas (Houston), and others have grown rapidly, often driven by biomanufacturing investments and lower costs ( www.cbre.com) ( www.cbre.com). North Carolina, for example, surpassed 100,000 life science jobs in 2023 and has risen to 7th place among U.S. states for biotech employment ( www.ncbiotech.org), reflecting its success in attracting manufacturing facilities and research operations.

• Talent Demand and Skills Gap: The biotech industry’s demand for skilled talent remains high and in some niches outstrips supply. Companies universally report difficulty hiring for certain specialized roles even during the current slowdown ( www.axios.com). A 2022 survey found 96% of biopharma executives believe the talent shortage will persist, citing unmet needs for expertise that the current workforce pipeline does not fill ( www.bio-rad.com). The workforce is highly educated (with many Ph.D. scientists, engineers, and clinicians), but there is growing reliance on allied skills like data science, bioinformatics, regulatory affairs, and biomanufacturing technicians. New graduates in biological and biomedical fields hit a record high (~174,700 degrees awarded in 2023 ( www.cbre.com)), which should help long-term, yet practical skills gaps remain.The industry and government are partnering on workforce development – for instance, a federal Biotech Workforce Action Plan launched in 2023 to expand training programs (including for roles not requiring 4-year degrees) and to broaden participation in the bioeconomy ( www.whitehouse.gov) ( www.whitehouse.gov).

• Drivers and Challenges: The report analyzes key factors influencing biotech employment: investment cycles, regulatory policy, technological innovation, and global competition. Biotech jobs closely follow the boom-bust cycles of R&D funding. Periods of abundant venture capital and favorable market conditions (such as 2017–2021) spur company formation and hiring, whereas tightening capital (2022–2023) forces layoffs and mergers. Government policy is another major factor – supportive measures like steady NIH research funding, FDA efficiency, and incentives for domestic manufacturing boost employment, while policy uncertainty or cuts can have a chilling effect. In 2025, policy instability and budget cuts (e.g. reductions in NIH/FDA funding) were cited as contributing to a sector slump, slowing drug approvals and prompting some firms to cut jobs ( www.reuters.com) ( www.reuters.com). Meanwhile, technological change is creating new opportunities: the integration of AI and machine learning into biotech is generating entirely new job roles and increasing cross-sector competition for talent. Over 75% of surveyed life science companies have implemented some form of AI in the last two years ( www.axios.com), underscoring the demand for data scientists and AI-skilled professionals in biotech teams. Lastly, international competition, especially from China’s fast-growing biotech sector, is an emerging challenge – the U.S. risks losing R&D leadership (and associated jobs) if it does not continue to invest in innovation and its workforce ( www.axios.com).

• Future Outlook: Despite current headwinds, the long-term prospects for biotech employment remain positive. Demographic and health trends (aging populations, global health threats), coupled with rapid scientific advances (genomics, gene therapy, mRNA, synthetic biology, etc.), will continue to drive growth in biotech R&D and production. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects above-average growth for many biotech-related occupations (e.g., +9% for medical scientists, 2024–2034 ( www.bls.gov)), though some technician-level roles will grow more slowly without additional interventions ( www.bls.gov). By the end of the decade, industry analysts anticipate a re-acceleration of hiring as new products reach the market and as companies rebuild pipelines post-downturn. However, the composition of jobs might evolve – with relatively more positions in biomanufacturing (production) and digital biology roles alongside traditional lab research jobs. Policy choices will heavily influence the trajectory: sustained R&D funding, nurturing STEM education, sensible regulatory reform, and enabling immigration of specialized talent could all bolster the U.S. biotech workforce. Conversely, continued capital scarcity or adversarial policies (such as stringent drug price controls without offsetting incentives) could dampen job growth. Biotech employers are also expected to continue prioritizing diversity and inclusion, remote collaboration tools, and reskilling, which can expand the talent pool and improve retention. In summary, the sector is at a delicate inflection point in 2025 – poised between a recent contraction and a potentially strong recovery – and decisions made now will shape whether the U.S. maintains its leadership in biotech innovation and employment in the years ahead.

This report now proceeds with a comprehensive analysis supporting these findings. We delve into the historical context of the biotech industry’s growth, detail the current landscape of jobs and skills, explore regional dynamics via case studies, and discuss the challenges and opportunities that will define the future of the biotech job market.

---

Introduction and Background

Biotechnology – the application of biological science and technology to develop products and processes – has matured into one of the United States’ most dynamic high-technology industries. Biotech encompasses a broad swath of activities, from pharmaceutical drug development and manufacturing, to genetic engineering and genomics, biomedical research, bioinformatics, biomanufacturing, and even agricultural and environmental biotech applications. In practice, the “biotech job market” overlaps significantly with what is often termed the life sciences industry or bioscience sector, including traditional pharmaceutical companies, emerging biotech startups, research institutions, medical device manufacturers, and related service providers. This industry is innovation-driven and R&D-intensive, relying on scientific discovery and advanced manufacturing to create its products (such as therapeutics, vaccines, diagnostics, and bio-based materials).

Historical Overview: The roots of the modern biotech industry trace back to breakthroughs in molecular biology in the 1970s and 1980s. The founding of Genentech in 1976 – often considered the birth of the biotech industry – and the development of recombinant DNA technology paved the way for the first biotech-derived drugs in the 1980s. Over the following decades, the sector expanded in waves, fueled by milestones such as the Human Genome Project (1990s), advances in recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies, and growing venture capital interest in life science ventures. By the early 2000s, biotechnologies were being applied not only in medicine but also in agriculture (e.g. GM crops) and industrial processes, broadening the scope of biotech jobs.

Throughout its history, U.S. biotech growth has been marked by cyclical booms linked to scientific breakthroughs and investment climates. For example, the late 1990s saw a surge of biotech IPOs during the genomics revolution, and the early 2010s brought another boom in biologic drugs and personalized medicine startups. Government investment has consistently played a role in enabling growth – robust funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other agencies supported basic research and talent development that fed the industry’s expansion. As a result, biotech employment steadily climbed. Over the last twenty years, U.S. employment in life science research and industry grew roughly 79%, vastly outpacing the 8% growth of the overall U.S. job market in the same period ( www.bio-rad.com). In other words, biotech has been a major engine of job creation, even when overall economic growth was modest.

The industry’s resilience was especially evident during economic downturns. In the 2008–2009 financial crisis, for instance, biotech employment contracted only minimally (~1.9% decline) compared to much steeper job losses in many sectors ( www.cbre.com). Even more recently, during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, when U.S. unemployment briefly spiked above 14%, the biotech sector proved counter-cyclical – companies ramped up hiring to develop diagnostics, vaccines, and therapeutics, offsetting other losses ( innovatebio.org). A workforce trends analysis by TEConomy Partners noted that the life science industry “grew through 2020” despite the pandemic shock, continuing a long-term pattern of outpacing overall private sector growth ( innovatebio.org). This ability to weather downturns is partly because healthcare and biomedical innovation remain essential needs regardless of the economic climate. It also reflects how heavily the industry leans on highly skilled talent and R&D; layoffs are relatively rarer given the value of specialized human capital and ongoing nature of research projects.

Defining the Biotech Workforce: For context, it is important to delineate what jobs are counted in the “biotech” sector. The U.S. bioscience industry encompasses several major subsectors as defined in economic analyses ( www.ncbiotech.org):

• Drug and Pharmaceutical Manufacturers: Companies that develop and produce medications (including biopharmaceuticals such as vaccines, antibodies, cell and gene therapies). This subsector includes large pharmaceutical corporations and smaller biotech firms focusing on drug R&D.
• Research, Testing, and Medical Laboratories: Organizations primarily engaged in biotech research and experimental development – including contract research organizations (CROs), clinical research sites, and diagnostic testing labs. Many biotech startups and research institutes fall here.
• Medical Devices and Equipment: Firms that design and manufacture biomedical devices, diagnostic equipment, and related health technology. (While sometimes considered separate from “biotech” in a narrow sense, they are often included in the life sciences sector due to overlaps in biomedical engineering and regulation).
• Bioscience-Related Distribution and Supplies: This covers the supply chain side – specialized distribution of medical and life science products (e.g. pharma distribution) and biotech reagents, as well as logistics for biologic materials.
• Agricultural Feedstock and Industrial Biosciences: Companies using biotechnology in agriculture (such as seed/GM crop companies, animal health) or industrial processing (e.g. biofuels, enzymes for manufacturing).

All these subsectors contribute to biotech employment figures used in industry reports. In 2023, the U.S. bioscience sector encompassed nearly 150,000 business establishments across every state ( www.prnewswire.com) – from laboratories and manufacturing plants to offices of regulatory and support services. The roles within this industry range widely, including: research scientists (biologists, chemists, bioinformaticians), clinical trial coordinators, regulatory affairs specialists, bioprocess engineers, laboratory technicians, manufacturing technicians for biologic production, quality control analysts, data scientists, medical and science liaisons, and a host of support roles (project managers, business development, etc.).

A unifying characteristic of biotech jobs is their high skill and education requirement. The sector has an outsized demand for STEM talent, with a very high share of roles requiring at least a bachelor’s degree and many requiring doctoral or professional degrees ( innovatebio.org). According to one workforce report, the life sciences industry’s concentration of postsecondary-educated workers is among the highest of any major sector, which necessitates close collaboration with universities to sustain the talent pipeline ( innovatebio.org). This dynamic shapes the labor market in that biotech employers often compete for Ph.D. scientists, medical doctors, and engineers, while also needing technically trained workers (with associate’s or bachelor’s degrees) for lab and manufacturing operations.

Another key feature is that biotech jobs tend to offer above-average compensation. The complex and high-stakes nature of the work, along with the need to attract top-tier talent, means salaries significantly exceed national norms. For example, in San Diego – a major biotech hub – the average wage in the life sciences industry is about $120,700, which is well above the region’s median household income ( www.axios.com). In North Carolina, life science jobs pay a “wage premium” of 84% more than the state’s overall private sector average wage (roughly $55,000 higher) ( www.ncbiotech.org). Nationally, bioscience workers also enjoy generous benefits and stability, as many positions are in well-funded companies or institutions. This combination of high pay and intellectual reward (working on cutting-edge science with potential to improve lives) makes biotech jobs highly desirable, but also means the bar for entry is high.

Significance of the Biotech Sector: The biotech industry is not only a source of employment and economic output; it also holds strategic importance for the country. Biotech innovations drive improvements in health outcomes, agricultural productivity, and environmental sustainability. As underscored in a 2024 industry report, the “bioscience sector is vital to addressing the world’s most pressing challenges – from pandemics and national security to preventive health and climate change” ( www.prnewswire.com). Recognizing this, U.S. policymakers increasingly view biotechnology as a cornerstone of the 21st-century economy – often referring to the growing “bioeconomy.” In late 2022, the White House launched a National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative aimed at ensuring U.S. leadership in this arena, with an explicit goal to “make in America all that is invented in America” (signaling efforts to onshore production and create domestic jobs) ( www.whitehouse.gov). By 2023, the Biden Administration went further to announce a comprehensive plan to bolster and diversify the biotech workforce – emphasizing rapid expansion of biotech education and training, including for workers without four-year degrees, to meet the surging demand ( www.whitehouse.gov) ( www.whitehouse.gov).

Against this backdrop, this report examines the U.S. biotech job market in detail as of October 2025. We first describe the current landscape of the biotech workforce – its size, recent growth trends, and geographic distribution. We then analyze the factors influencing employment, including capital investment cycles, policy and regulatory environment, technological changes, and labor supply issues. To provide a nuanced view, we include case studies of specific regions (such as Massachusetts and North Carolina) and companies (such as Moderna) that illustrate broader trends. Finally, we discuss the future outlook for biotech jobs, exploring both opportunities (new innovations, increasing healthcare needs) and challenges (economic uncertainties, competition, skill gaps) that will shape the trajectory of this dynamic sector.

Throughout the report, all factual statements are supported by up-to-date data and credible sources, cited inline. The aim is to offer a thorough, evidence-based understanding of the U.S. biotech job market – useful for policymakers, industry leaders, job seekers, and researchers alike. By synthesizing multiple perspectives and data points, we hope to shed light on how this critical industry can continue to thrive and what is needed to sustain its workforce in the years ahead.

---

The Current Landscape of the U.S. Biotech Job Market (2025)

Industry Size and Recent Growth Trends

The U.S. biotech/life sciences industry has reached its largest scale in history in terms of employment. According to 2024 data from the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) and TEConomy Partners, the nation’s bioscience industry employed roughly 2.3 million Americans in 2023 ( www.prnewswire.com). This represents an expansive workforce ranging from laboratory researchers to manufacturing specialists. Importantly, this figure reflects direct employment in thousands of biotech companies and research entities across the country – when considering indirect jobs (e.g. suppliers, service providers supported by biotech activity), the sector supports about 8 million additional U.S. jobs ( www.prnewswire.com). In other words, each biotech job helps create or sustain several other jobs in the economy, underscoring a strong multiplier effect.

Even by absolute measures, biotech has become a major employer: for comparison, the 2.3 million figure is on par with or larger than employment in some traditionally big sectors (for instance, the U.S. motor vehicle manufacturing industry employs around 1 million workers by recent counts). The bioscience sector’s footprint is truly nationwide – it spans nearly 150,000 business establishments in every state ( www.prnewswire.com), from big pharmaceutical company campuses to small startup labs and everything in between. Notably, 49 states plus D.C. and Puerto Rico saw net job growth in biosciences from 2019 to 2023 ( www.prnewswire.com), indicating broad-based expansion rather than just localized growth.

Examining growth rates, the biotech job market has significantly outpaced overall U.S. employment growth in recent years. Between 2019 and 2023 – a period including the pandemic turmoil – bioscience industry employment in the U.S. rose by nearly 15% ( www.prnewswire.com). This growth far exceeded the overall private sector job growth over the same four-year span, which was much lower (national nonfarm employment grew roughly ~4–5% total from 2019 through 2023, when factoring in the pandemic dip and recovery). Thus, biotech not only recovered quickly from the COVID-19 shock but actually surged ahead. Industry analysts highlight that this continued an established trend: over the long term, bioscience employment has been on an upward trajectory, proving relatively resilient to recessions ( www.cbre.com). A senior adviser at BIO noted in late 2024 that “in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and economic downturns, it is clear that the biosciences remain a key sector of the growing innovation economy” ( www.prnewswire.com).

However, the period from 2020 through 2022 was exceptional even by biotech standards. With the onset of COVID-19, unprecedented public and private funding flowed into biopharmaceutical R&D and manufacturing. Companies working on vaccines, antiviral drugs, and diagnostics went on hiring sprees. Simultaneously, investor enthusiasm for biotech skyrocketed: venture capital (VC) funding for biotech startups hit record highs in 2020–2021, and dozens of biotech firms went public in an IPO wave. For example, Flagship Pioneering’s managing partner Stephen Berenson pointed out that a frenzy of investments – some ultimately “unproductive” – took place around 2021 at the height of optimism ( www.axios.com). By some estimates, biotech venture funding and IPO proceeds in 2021 reached unprecedented levels (with biotech IPOs raising over $14 billion in 2021). This influx of capital translated into rapid hiring and expansion. Companies raced to build out teams in research, clinical development, and production to advance their pipelines.

Peak Employment and Cooling Off: Indicators suggest that U.S. biotech employment likely peaked in late 2022 or early 2023 before a modest correction. According to CBRE’s analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, total U.S. life sciences employment (which includes biotech and pharma) began waning in mid-2022, plateaued, and then saw a small decline over the next year ( www.cbre.com). Specifically, from August 2022 to August 2023, life sciences payrolls contracted by only 0.8% ( www.cbre.com) – a relatively minor dip considering the sector’s prior rapid growth. This net drop was equivalent to only a few tens of thousands of jobs lost nationwide. By comparison, the overall U.S. job market grew slightly in that timeframe, so biotech underperformed the general economy for perhaps the first time in years during 2023.

Several factors contributed to this inflection point. First, the financial markets turned bearish on biotech in 2022 – the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index fell, and as Berenson noted, biotech IPO activity collapsed by 93% in 2022 versus the previous year ( www.axios.com). With stock prices down, biotechnology companies (especially small and mid-cap firms) struggled to raise fresh capital. Many early-stage biotechs that had gone public during the boom suddenly found their market valuations below the cash on hand, reflecting investor skepticism ( www.reuters.com). In 2023, about 30% of publicly traded small/mid biotech firms were trading at or below their cash value, signaling severe market pessimism ( www.reuters.com). This funding crunch forced companies to conserve cash, often by freezing hiring or implementing layoffs.

Second, a string of late-stage clinical trial failures around 2021–2022 eroded investor confidence ( www.axios.com). High-profile setbacks (drug candidates that failed in Phase III trials, etc.) raised concerns that too much money had chased too few viable products. Venture investors became more discerning, and less capital was available for speculative biotech projects by 2023. U.S. venture capital investment in biotech fell markedly from the 2021 peak in the subsequent two years (for instance, Massachusetts saw venture funding drop in 2022 and 2023 before a rebound in 2024) ( www.axios.com).

A third contributing factor has been the macroeconomic environment. The rapid rise in interest rates starting in 2022 made financing more expensive and reduced the attractiveness of long-term R&D investments relative to safer assets. Inflationary pressures also increased operating costs for labs and factories. By 2023, many biotech executives described a challenging environment of “higher costs and scarcer capital,” forcing tough choices in budgeting.

Despite these headwinds, the job contraction remained relatively mild, evidencing a degree of resilience. A drop of less than 1% over a year (Aug 2022–Aug 2023) is small in historical context – for instance, at the start of the pandemic in April 2020, life sciences employment fell by 3.2% in just one month ( www.cbre.com), and during the early 1990s and 2008 recessions it fell around 1.9% in short order ( www.cbre.com). Compared to those, the recent easing is more of a plateau than a crash. One reason is that many large pharmaceutical companies continued to hire or at least retain staff even as smaller firms retrenched. Big Pharma often has more stable revenues and could weather market volatility, so job cuts in large firms were limited. In fact, data on layoffs show that pharmaceutical industry layoff announcements in early 2025 were significantly lower than in early 2024 ( www.cbre.com), suggesting the worst of the downsizing was concentrated in the prior year and primarily among smaller firms.

By early 2025, there were signs of a tentative recovery or stabilization. After the slight dip in 2023, life sciences employment ticked upward again in late 2024 and early 2025. CBRE reports that job growth resumed such that total U.S. life sciences employment hit a record high of ~2.1 million in March 2025 ( www.cbre.com). This indicates that, cumulatively, the sector regained jobs and even exceeded the previous peak from 2022. Contributing factors included some return of investor activity (venture funding in Massachusetts, for instance, rebounded to $7.8 billion in 2024 after the slump ( www.axios.com)) and the fact that companies had slimmed down to a core workforce and then began cautiously adding headcount for priority projects. In addition, new product launches and the anticipation of FDA approvals in late 2024/2025 (e.g., new gene therapies, Alzheimer’s drugs) spurred hiring in related areas like manufacturing, sales, and medical affairs in larger firms.

That said, the growth in 2025 has been fragile. After March 2025’s high point, employment fell slightly in April 2025 ( www.cbre.com), a reminder that the sector was not yet in full acceleration mode. Analysts describe the job market as teetering between stagnation and growth, highly sensitive to external conditions ( www.cbre.com). For example, in mid-2025, uncertainty around federal health policy introduced new risks (discussed later), which made some companies more hesitant to ramp up hiring. Moreover, the data show a subtle increase in slack: the unemployment rate for life, physical, and social science occupations – a category encompassing many biotech research roles – has risen to 3.1% as of April 2025, roughly double what it was a year prior ( www.cbre.com). While 3.1% unemployment is still low in absolute terms (and below the overall U.S. unemployment of 3.9% at that time ( www.cbre.com)), the jump suggests that job seekers in biotech are finding it slightly harder to secure positions than during the peak boom, when unemployment in these fields was around 1.5%. Layoff announcements that had trended downward through 2023 began to tick up again in March 2025 ( www.cbre.com), indicating a few late adjustments by companies to reduce costs.

In summary, as of late 2025 the current landscape is that U.S. biotech employment remains near historically high levels, but the explosive growth of the early 2020s has leveled off. The industry is navigating a transitional period: shedding some of the excess of the boom years, recalibrating workforce and projects, and waiting for the next wave of scientific or market momentum. Total job numbers have largely held steady or grown slightly in most regions, but there is a distinct sense of caution. Many companies have become more strategic in hiring – focusing on critical roles – and some excess capacity (in terms of both lab space and personnel) is being absorbed. The coming sections will explore which parts of the workforce have been most affected and how different segments are faring. First, we look at the composition of jobs and skills in the biotech sector, and then at the geographic distribution of these jobs.

Composition of Biotech Jobs: Roles, Skills, and Education

The biotech sector’s workforce is highly diverse in terms of job roles, yet unified by the scientific and technical skills required. Here we break down the key categories of jobs in the industry, along with typical educational requirements and recent trends affecting these roles.

Research & Development (R&D) Roles: A large portion of biotechnology jobs are in R&D functions – discovering new biological insights and translating them into products. These roles include research scientists (such as molecular biologists, biochemists, geneticists, pharmacologists), who often hold Ph.D. or M.D. degrees, as well as associate scientists and research assistants who may have Master’s or Bachelor’s degrees. R&D jobs are often concentrated in lab settings within biotech companies, pharmaceutical firms, or contract research organizations. They involve designing experiments, conducting laboratory work (e.g. cell culture, protein engineering, animal studies), and analyzing data to drive drug discovery or other biotech innovations.

In recent years, R&D employment in biotech expanded sharply, especially in leading hubs. For instance, Massachusetts – the nation’s top biotech R&D hub – saw its research and development workforce grow by 8.5% in 2022 alone ( www.axios.com), even when other sectors were slowing. This outpaced R&D job growth in other large states like California and Pennsylvania ( www.axios.com). Such growth was fueled by the proliferation of venture-funded biotech startups and the expansion of research programs (e.g. in mRNA vaccines, gene editing, cancer immunotherapy). R&D roles usually represent the core innovator workforce of a biotech company; consequently, they were often the last roles cut during the 2023 pullback (companies tend to preserve scientific talent as long as possible). However, some contraction did occur – the MassBio industry report noted that in 2024 Massachusetts experienced losses in R&D jobs for the first time in years ( www.axios.com), even as overall biopharma employment stayed flat. This suggests a slight consolidation of research teams, possibly as early-stage projects were shelved due to funding constraints.

Another evolving aspect is the interdisciplinary nature of R&D jobs today. Traditional bench science skills are still paramount, but there’s increasing demand for expertise at the intersection of biology and computational/data science. Bioinformatics analysts, computational biologists, and biostatisticians are integral to genomics and drug discovery efforts that generate massive datasets. These roles often require combined knowledge of biology and programming/statistics (many practitioners have Ph.D.’s or specialized Master’s in bioinformatics). The push toward data-driven biology means that even bench scientists are expected to be comfortable using advanced software and perhaps basic coding for data analysis. As such, biotech companies have been recruiting talent with hybrid skill sets – for example, a Ph.D. biologist who also has machine learning experience, or a computer scientist with knowledge of molecular biology.

Data Science and AI Specialists: The past few years have seen burgeoning demand for AI and machine learning roles within biotech. Companies are hiring data scientists, machine learning engineers, and computational chemists to help with tasks like drug molecule design, image analysis for diagnostics, and optimization of bioprocesses. According to industry surveys in late 2024, about 75% of life science companies reported implementing AI tools in their operations within the prior two years, and 86% planned further AI integration in the next two years ( www.axios.com). This dramatic adoption of AI is creating new job titles (e.g. AI research scientist in biotech, computational drug discovery lead) that were rare a decade ago. Often, individuals in these roles come from backgrounds in computer science or engineering, sometimes switching from the tech sector to biotech. The LinkedIn 2023 emerging jobs report even found that AI-focused positions (some of which overlap with biotech, like AI in healthcare) were among the fastest-growing roles in the U.S. ( www.axios.com). Biotech firms, to remain competitive, are increasingly competing with Silicon Valley for talent versed in algorithm development, data handling, and AI model validation – a trend that blurs the line between “tech” and “biotech” sectors.

Biomanufacturing and Process Development: Another major category is biomanufacturing—the production of biotech products at scale (such as commercial drug manufacturing, production of biologics, cell therapy manufacturing, etc.). Jobs in this domain include bioprocess engineers, manufacturing associates/technicians, production planners, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) specialists, and process development scientists. Manufacturing roles are typically more accessible in terms of educational requirements: many manufacturing techs have bachelor’s or associate degrees (in biotechnology, chemistry, engineering or related fields), and even some entry-level operators may have only a high school diploma plus industry-specific training. However, manufacturing management and process development scientists often have advanced degrees (M.S. or Ph.D.), especially when optimizing complex processes like cell culture bioreactors or purification protocols.

Biomanufacturing employment in the U.S. biotech industry has been rising, particularly as companies and policymakers emphasize domestic production capacity. There is a concerted movement to build more biologics manufacturing plants on U.S. soil – partly a response to supply chain lessons from COVID-19 and partly due to policies encouraging onshoring. Several case examples illustrate this boom (detailed later in case studies): for instance, Amgen’s new $1 billion biomanufacturing facility in North Carolina and Fujifilm Diosynth’s $3.2B contract manufacturing facility (also in NC) are adding hundreds of skilled manufacturing jobs ( www.axios.com) ( www.axios.com). Similarly, Eli Lilly announced a $5 billion investment in a new Virginia plant in 2025, expected to create significant jobs as part of expanding U.S. production ( www.reuters.com). These projects are not unique – states like Indiana, North Carolina, and Texas have landed multiple big bioproduction investments recently, reflecting how biomanufacturing has become a key growth area for biotech employment.

Despite this growth, the talent shortage is acute in biomanufacturing. Companies frequently struggle to hire enough skilled technicians and engineers to run highly specialized production processes (like fermenters for biologic drugs or cell therapy manufacturing suites). The skill set is somewhat niche – requiring understanding of both biology and industrial operations under Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). One industry analysis reported that essentially all major biopharma companies cite difficulties finding experienced biomanufacturing personnel when they expand facilities ( www.bio-rad.com). To address this, some regions have developed workforce training programs with community colleges (for example, North Carolina’s well-known Biowork program and training centers that equip workers with biotech manufacturing skills). The Biden Administration’s 2023 biotech workforce action plan explicitly highlighted scaling up biomanufacturing training, noting that many good jobs in bioproduction “do not require a four-year college degree” and should be made accessible to a broader workforce ( www.whitehouse.gov). These efforts suggest a recognition that manufacturing roles can provide entry points into the biotech sector for technicians and skilled trades, not just Ph.D. scientists.

Clinical Research and Regulatory Roles: The process of developing a biotech product involves extensive clinical trials and navigating regulatory approval, which creates another set of occupations. Clinical research coordinators, clinical trial managers, and medical monitors oversee the testing of new drugs in human volunteers. These roles often require backgrounds in life sciences or nursing/pharmacy, and they involve skills in trial protocol design, data collection, and ethics compliance. The clinical trials field has been growing, especially with record levels of clinical activity in recent years. (Notably, in 2024 the U.S. conducted ~6,000 clinical trials, but China surpassed that with over 7,100 trials ( www.axios.com), which is discussed later in global context.) Each trial requires staff, and the proliferation of trials for complex therapies (e.g., gene therapies, oncology trials with precision medicine designs) has increased demand for experienced clinical operations professionals.

Regulatory affairs specialists are another crucial group – they prepare and submit documentation to the FDA and other agencies, ensuring that new biotech products meet all legal and safety requirements. Many in regulatory roles have a mix of scientific understanding and knowledge of regulations; they might come from backgrounds in pharmacy, biology, or law. As regulatory science evolves (e.g., guidelines for novel gene therapies or AI-driven diagnostic devices), regulatory affairs professionals must constantly update their expertise. The job market for regulatory roles tends to track the pipeline of products: periods with many drugs approaching approval (as in 2021–2022) lead companies to hire more in regulatory and compliance. When approvals slow or companies cut programs, regulatory staff might be trimmed or redeployed.

One current concern by 2025 is that regulatory uncertainty – for example, leadership changes or funding issues at the FDA – can negatively impact these jobs. In 2025, reports surfaced of turmoil at the FDA, including layoffs of some personnel, which alarmed the industry ( www.reuters.com). If FDA review timelines become unpredictable due to understaffing or policy shifts, biotech firms may delay certain regulatory submissions, indirectly affecting workload for regulatory professionals. Nonetheless, given the stringent and necessary nature of compliance, these roles remain in demand.

Quality Assurance/Control and Safety: Overlapping with manufacturing and regulatory are QA/QC roles – ensuring product quality and safety. These include validation specialists, quality auditors, and safety officers. As biotech manufacturing grows, so does the need for QA/QC workers. Many of these jobs require strong attention to detail and familiarity with standards, but not necessarily advanced degrees (often a B.A./B.S. is sufficient, along with training in specific quality systems). The growth of cell and gene therapy companies, which require meticulous manufacturing and handling practices, has led to increased hiring of quality specialists.

Support and Corporate Roles: Biotech companies, like any businesses, also employ people in general roles such as project management, finance, HR, legal, and business development. While not unique to biotech, these roles often benefit from some life science knowledge. For instance, business development managers in a biotech firm need to understand drug pipelines and science to negotiate partnerships. Similarly, patent attorneys and intellectual property specialists with biotech expertise are in high demand, given the importance of patents in this industry.

One interesting dynamic in 2021–2022 was a shortage of experienced biotech executives. The sheer number of startups launched created high demand for C-suite talent (CEOs, Chief Scientific Officers, etc.), to the point that industry commentators talked about a “talent crunch” at the executive level. Massachusetts sources in early 2025 noted that local biotech companies were facing difficulties filling both entry-level and executive positions ( www.axios.com). At the entry level, the issue might be a gap between what skills new graduates have and what companies need (or simply not enough graduates in certain specialized areas). At the executive level, the challenge was that there are only so many seasoned leaders with experience taking drugs through approval or scaling a biotech company – and with dozens of startups looking for such leadership, demand outstripped supply. This led to instances of executives being stretched thin (some serving on multiple boards, etc.) and companies sometimes recruiting talent from big pharma or related industries to fill the gap.

Educational Profile of the Workforce: As alluded to, biotech workers are among the most educated in the labor force. Based on workforce surveys, a significant majority of biotech R&D staff hold a bachelor’s or higher degree, and a very large fraction have doctorates for research roles. The industry’s close ties to academia are evident – many employees are former academics (postdoctoral researchers, university professors, etc.) who transitioned to industry. This continuous infusion of Ph.D.-level talent has helped biotech maintain a high innovation rate. At the same time, not all roles require such credentials. In manufacturing and lab technician roles, community college and vocational programs have proven effective at preparing workers. Recognizing the opportunities here, numerous initiatives aim to widen the pipeline. For example, the Coalition of State Bioscience Institutes (CSBI) and TEConomy’s 2023 workforce report emphasizes strengthening partnerships with colleges to produce the right skill mix ( innovatebio.org).

A notable statistic: U.S. universities are producing more life science graduates than ever – over 174,000 degrees and certificates in biological/biomedical sciences were conferred in the 2022–2023 academic year, a record high ( www.cbre.com). This includes everything from associate degrees to Ph.D.’s. The output of new graduates has been growing (though the growth rate has slowed slightly as it reaches high levels) ( www.cbre.com). This bodes well for supplying fresh talent to the industry. However, there can be a mismatch between these graduates’ training and the specific needs of employers, which leads to complaints of skill shortages despite large numbers of graduates. For instance, a new Ph.D. in molecular biology might be very skilled in research but lack experience in regulatory documentation or GMP manufacturing, which are needed in industry. Bridging this gap through internships, industry-focused curricula, or on-the-job training is a continuing challenge.

Another critical aspect of the workforce composition is its lack of diversity in certain areas. While women and underrepresented minorities are present in the biotech workforce, they are not proportionally represented, especially in leadership. Women now make up close to half of biotech employees at entry and mid-levels in some companies, yet they hold only about 10% of board of director positions in biotech companies ( www.bio-rad.com). Racial and ethnic minorities likewise are underrepresented in executive and scientific leadership roles ( www.bio-rad.com). This has been a point of concern and focus; numerous biotech firms and associations have initiated diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs over the last few years. In Boston, for example, 164 life sciences companies pledged in 2020 to improve DEI, but as of late 2023, progress reports indicated many had not met targets, highlighting persistent gaps ( www.axios.com). The industry acknowledges that improving diversity could expand the talent pool and drive better decision-making (as diverse teams are shown to be more innovative). The 2023 Life Sciences Workforce Trends report devoted attention to DEI advancements, remote/hybrid work adaptations, and technology’s impact on talent ( innovatebio.org). For instance, one positive outcome of the pandemic was wider acceptance of flexible work arrangements, even in an industry that generally requires physical lab presence. Certain roles (like computational biology or data analysis) can be done remotely, allowing companies to recruit beyond traditional geographies and potentially enabling more diverse hiring. While lab scientists still mostly work on-site, many companies have shifted to hybrid models for meetings and non-lab tasks, which broadened geographic diversity of hires to some degree.

In summary, the biotech job market at present consists of a highly skilled, well-educated workforce spanning R&D, production, clinical, regulatory, and corporate roles. There is an ongoing skills gap in certain areas (notably biomanufacturing and specialized R&D fields), even as the number of qualified graduates grows. The industry is responding with increased training programs and workforce initiatives. Meanwhile, the push for greater diversity and new ways of working (like remote collaboration and leveraging AI tools) is gradually reshaping the profile of the biotech workforce. The next section will discuss where these jobs are located – the geographic distribution and clustering of biotech employment across the United States.

Geographic Distribution: Biotech Hubs and Emerging Clusters

Biotech industry activity is unevenly distributed geographically, with a concentration in several well-established clusters often termed “biotech hubs.” These hubs have arisen due to a combination of factors: proximity to leading research universities and medical centers, availability of venture capital, supportive state/local policies, and historically strong networks of companies attracting talent. Nonetheless, in recent years there’s been notable growth in emerging clusters outside the traditional centers, partly driven by deliberate investment and the expansion of biomanufacturing. Below we detail the major regions for biotech jobs in the U.S., along with case examples and recent trends in each.

1. Massachusetts (Boston-Cambridge): Perhaps the most vibrant biotech hub in the world, the Boston-Cambridge area in Massachusetts is a nexus of biotech R&D. Anchored by institutions like Harvard, MIT, and world-class teaching hospitals, this cluster has attracted hundreds of biotech companies and research institutes. Massachusetts as a state boasts the highest concentration of life scientists per capita and is home to many biotech headquarters. The MassBio trade association reported that despite economic headwinds, Massachusetts’ biopharma workforce continued to grow in 2022 (R&D employment +8.5% that year) ( www.axios.com). By 2023, total biopharma employment in MA was on the order of ~100,000 (MassBio’s reports indicate roughly 106,000 in 2022, although definitions vary). The growth persisted even when venture funding dipped temporarily, highlighting the region’s momentum ( www.axios.com).

However, Massachusetts has felt the recent cooldown. In 2024, the state’s biotech industry essentially plateaued: the overall biopharma workforce grew a mere 0.1% – effectively flat – and importantly there were “critical losses” in R&D and biomanufacturing jobs within that ( www.axios.com). Companies in the region reportedly reduced funding, instituted layoffs, and postponed some expansions or acquisitions amidst the tougher climate ( www.axios.com). High-profile firms like Biogen and even Moderna faced challenges. For instance, Moderna (Cambridge-based) experienced a sharp revenue decline after the peak of COVID-19 vaccine sales and announced a 10% reduction in its workforce in 2025 to cut costs ( www.reuters.com). This would bring Moderna’s headcount below 5,000, illustrating that even success-story companies are not immune to market adjustments.

Despite these setbacks, Massachusetts’ biotech hub remains fundamentally strong and optimistic about the future. The ecosystem’s depth – from early-stage venture incubators to big pharma presence (e.g. Pfizer, Novartis have major sites in Cambridge) – provides resilience. MassBio’s leadership acknowledged the current “downturn” but maintained cautious optimism that the state will resume robust growth as conditions improve ( www.axios.com). Notably, even amid the downturn, many Massachusetts biotechs report difficulty filling certain jobs. There is demand for entry-level lab technicians and experienced executives alike that outstrips supply ( www.axios.com). This paradox (simultaneous layoffs and talent shortages) can occur when the skills of those laid off don’t match open roles, or when specific expertise (like experienced clinical project managers or regulatory experts) are in very short supply. Additionally, the cost of living in greater Boston is very high, which can be a hurdle for attracting mid-level talent. Massachusetts has responded with continuous investment in workforce development and incentives (the state has a long-running Life Sciences Initiative offering funding and tax breaks to companies).

2. California (San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego, plus Los Angeles): California is the other biotech powerhouse state. The San Francisco Bay Area, encompassing San Francisco, South San Francisco, and the Silicon Valley around Palo Alto, is often considered the birthplace of biotech (Genentech started in South SF). The Bay Area cluster benefits from top research universities (Stanford, UCSF, UC Berkeley), a strong venture capital community (Sand Hill Road investors heavily fund biotech), and a culture of innovation. As of mid-2023, the Bay Area’s biotech employment was ~153,000 – a record high for the region ( www.axios.com). The region also generated over $100 billion in economic output from life sciences in 2021 ( www.axios.com). It remains a hub of cutting-edge R&D, especially in areas like gene editing (home to multiple CRISPR-related companies), synthetic biology, and oncology.

Notably, the Bay Area continued growing through 2022–2023. It was cited, alongside Boston and Seattle, as one of the fastest-growing life science labor markets in 2022 ( www.axios.com). This suggests that Northern California was comparatively less affected by the immediate downturn (possibly because tech layoffs in 2022 freed up some talent and resources that shifted to life sciences, and because major companies like Genentech, Gilead, etc., remained stable). The region does face challenges: sky-high real estate and living costs can deter expansions (lab space in South San Francisco is among the priciest in the nation). Some companies have started to establish secondary sites in lower-cost areas (e.g. many Bay Area firms also open offices or labs in places like Texas or North Carolina for manufacturing or back-office operations). Still, the Bay Area’s critical mass of expertise is hard to replicate, and it continues to rank at or near the top in most measures of biotech cluster strength (talent pool, NIH funding, VC funding, patents, etc.).

San Diego, in Southern California, is another significant cluster. San Diego’s life sciences industry leans heavily on biotech R&D (with strengths in genomics, neuroscience, and marine biology, among others) and also on biomedical device companies. The region saw tremendous growth in the 2010s, but experienced a dip in 2023: San Diego lost some jobs and a handful of companies that year ( www.axios.com). The number of local life science companies dropped from 2,215 in 2022 to 2,153 in 2023 ( www.axios.com), indicating some consolidation or closures of small firms. Nonetheless, San Diego’s sector remained over 10% larger than five years prior ( www.axios.com), meaning the longer-term trend is still upwards. With an average life sciences wage of ~$120,700 that far exceeds the median household income locally ( www.axios.com), biotech jobs are a pillar of the San Diego economy (accounting for an economic output of $56.6 billion in the region ( www.axios.com)). The city has also been proactive in nurturing the industry – for instance, hosting the global BIO Convention in 2024 to showcase its assets ( www.axios.com) and exploring projects to develop more lab space (such as proposals for a downtown life science hub). San Diego benefits from institutions like the Salk Institute and UCSD, and from being an attractive place to live for scientists, though it competes with LA and Bay Area for talent within California.

Los Angeles/Orange County form a more dispersed life sciences economy. Historically overshadowed by SF and SD in biotech, the LA area actually has significant pharma manufacturing (e.g. Baxter’s operations) and medtech companies, as well as growing biotech startups spinning out of Caltech, USC, and UCLA. In CBRE’s 2025 talent report, Los Angeles-Orange County ranked #5 among U.S. life science talent clusters ( www.cbre.com), suggesting it has a large workforce in the sector. Indeed, with the population size of LA, even moderate concentration yields many jobs, particularly in biopharmaceutical manufacturing and device manufacturing. LA/OC also has a niche in medtech – interestingly, Minneapolis-St. Paul was ranked #1 in medtech talent, but LA/OC was previously a leader in that area and remains top-tier ( www.cbre.com) ( www.cbre.com). The challenge for LA’s biotech growth is less about workforce (which is ample) and more about integration and focus – the region is spread out and historically lacked the tight cluster feel of Boston or SF. However, with new incubators and investment, LA has potential to further boost its biotech standing.

3. New York / New Jersey (Mid-Atlantic Corridor): The Greater New York City area, including Northern New Jersey, is one of the largest life science employment centers by sheer volume, thanks to the legacy big pharma presence. Companies like Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer have long histories and large facilities in NJ/NY. Because of this, the region has tens of thousands of jobs, especially in pharmaceutical R&D, clinical development, and corporate roles. New Jersey, in particular, historically had strong pharmaceutical manufacturing and continues to host many manufacturing plants. According to talent rankings, NY–NJ stands in the top 3–4 clusters nationally ( www.cbre.com). The area boasts exceptional academic centers (Columbia, NYU, Rockefeller, etc.), though NYC itself was slower to develop a biotech startup culture compared to Boston or SF. That is changing: NYC has invested in life science incubators and lab spaces (e.g. the Alexandria Center for Life Science in Manhattan), aiming to foster a thriving biotech scene in the city. Meanwhile, New Jersey’s strengths in manufacturing and clinical operations persist, with the state actively recruiting new biomanufacturing projects (NJ has landed some cell therapy manufacturing investments in recent years).

4. Maryland / Washington D.C. Metro: Another key cluster is the Maryland–D.C. region, often dubbed “BioHealth Capital Region.” This area includes Montgomery County, MD (Gaithersburg/Rockville) and extends to the D.C. suburbs and into Delaware. It’s anchored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda and the FDA headquarters in White Oak, MD, as well as major military medical research centers. The presence of federal research agencies has spawned many biotech companies (especially in vaccines, infectious diseases, and biologics) – for example, the Gaithersburg area is home to Novavax, Emergent BioSolutions, and others focusing on vaccines/biodefense, partly because of proximity to agencies that fund or regulate them. The D.C.-Baltimore area consistently ranks in the top clusters; CBRE lists it at #3 or #4 for R&D talent ( www.cbre.com). The workforce here includes many public sector scientists (NIH employs thousands of researchers) alongside industry. The synergy between public research and private biotech is a defining feature.

Maryland has seen robust growth: it crossed 54,000 life science jobs by 2021 and has been growing above national rates. The state’s biomanufacturing is also significant (e.g., AstraZeneca’s biomanufacturing in Frederick, MD and Kite Pharma’s cell therapy plant). One differentiation is that because a lot of activity is government-linked, changes in federal budgets can affect the region. The recent scenario in 2025 – if NIH and FDA budgets face cuts – directly threatens jobs in this cluster ( www.reuters.com). Indeed, Reuters reported mass layoffs at federal health agencies (like NIH, FDA) in 2025 due to budget cuts, which would “deeply impact” small biotechs depending on those agencies ( www.reuters.com). Such cuts can ripple out: for instance, if NIH grant funding contracts, academic labs and associated biotech collaborations in the Bethesda/Gaithersburg area may shrink, and if FDA review slows, companies might delay hiring for product launches. Hence, the policy environment in D.C. is particularly critical for this region’s job market.

5. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Outside the Northeast and California, the Research Triangle Park (RTP) in North Carolina has emerged as arguably the top biotech hub in the South. RTP is anchored by Duke University, UNC Chapel Hill, and NC State, and has attracted numerous pharmaceutical and biotech investments since the 1990s. North Carolina’s life sciences industry just reached a milestone exceeding 100,000 jobs in 2023 ( www.ncbiotech.org), making it a major player. Impressively, NC’s growth has outpaced national growth and even most top-tier states in recent years ( www.ncbiotech.org), exemplified by the state rising from 9th to 7th largest bioscience employment from 2020 to 2023 ( www.ncbiotech.org). This climb was fueled by significant expansions: for example, Biogen is investing $2 billion to expand its RTP manufacturing facilities (its 8th facility in NC) ( www.axios.com), and Novo Nordisk announced a $4.1 billion new plant in NC in 2023 – the largest life science investment in the state’s history, expected to add hundreds of jobs ( www.axios.com). Additionally, contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) like Fujifilm Diosynth and Catalent have large operations there. All of this has cemented NC’s reputation as the biomanufacturing capital of the U.S. in many respects.

What draws companies to NC? A major factor is cost and infrastructure. The state offers a lower cost of living and doing business compared to Boston or San Francisco. Wages for many life science occupations in NC are indeed lower than in those coastal hubs (which can be an advantage for employers). For instance, in talent rankings, Raleigh-Durham has comparatively lower average wages for life scientists than Boston or SF, making it an affordable destination for companies and workers alike ( www.cbre.com). State and local governments have also been very proactive: NC created the North Carolina Biotechnology Center in the 1980s to foster the industry, and it supported specialized training programs. As a result, NC has a pipeline of skilled workers; even so, the demand is so high now that labor markets are tightening. The upside is that these are quality jobs: NC’s bioscience jobs pay on average 84% more than the state’s overall average wage ( www.ncbiotech.org), bringing significant prosperity to those employed in the sector.

6. Emerging and Other Notable Clusters: Beyond the top five or six regions, there are several other cities and states with growing biotech presence:

• Seattle (Washington State): Seattle has a strong biotech cluster focused on immunotherapy, infectious disease, and global health (influenced by the Gates Foundation and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center). It was among the fastest-growing markets recently ( www.axios.com). Companies like Seagen (oncology) and manifold startups have put Seattle on the map. Seattle’s life science workforce ranks in the top 10 and continues to expand, although it’s smaller than Boston or SF.

• Houston and Dallas (Texas): Texas is quickly rising. Houston in particular jumped into the top 10 markets for life science talent by 2025 ( www.cbre.com). The Texas Medical Center in Houston is the world’s largest medical complex and has spawned a biotech initiative with new innovation hubs. Houston’s advantage is huge clinical/research infrastructure and a relatively low cost of living. Dallas also has some biotech growth (for instance, via UT Southwestern’s research). Additionally, Texas has attracted manufacturing: Fujifilm’s large facility is in College Station, TX and Houston has a new Cell Therapy manufacturing center.

• Philadelphia and Delaware (Mid-Atlantic): Philadelphia, home to University of Pennsylvania and other research schools, has a burgeoning cell and gene therapy cluster (sparked by Penn’s role in developing CAR-T therapies and gene therapy spin-offs). Philly was ranked just behind Raleigh in recent talent metrics ( www.cbre.com). It surpassed San Diego to reach #7, which is notable ( www.cbre.com). The area also includes Wilmington, Delaware (with AstraZeneca presence) and central New Jersey, forming a corridor of pharma/biotech jobs.

• Chicago (Illinois) and Midwest: Chicago has a modest biotech scene, historically more focused on healthcare services. But Illinois is home to pharma giant AbbVie (north of Chicago) and has strengths in agricultural biotech (e.g., Decatur and St. Louis just outside Illinois have agri-biotech activities). The Midwest in general has pockets: Indianapolis, Indiana is Eli Lilly’s HQ and has a cluster of pharma manufacturing. St. Louis, Missouri has an agricultural and plant science cluster (e.g., Bayer Crop Science is there, formerly Monsanto). Madison, Wisconsin and Minneapolis, Minnesota are notable for medtech and biotech tools companies. In fact, Minneapolis-St. Paul is ranked the #1 market for medical device talent ( www.cbre.com), due to companies like Medtronic and 3M’s health divisions historically being based there.

• Florida: Florida has been trying to grow life sciences, with some success in the realm of research institutes (Scripps Florida, Max Planck Florida) and specialty areas like regenerative medicine (in Orlando/Tampa). The state still has a smaller share of biotech employment but has potential given its size.

• Other states: States like Colorado (Denver/Boulder) have a growing community of biotech startups, often spinouts from universities. Utah has some biotech manufacturing. Georgia (Atlanta) has a health IT slant but also some biotech (driven by CDC presence and Emory University). And Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) has nascent activity in robotics-meets-biology, etc. Virtually every state has recognized biotech as an opportunity sector – for example, even rural states leverage niches (Idaho in agricultural biotech, etc.).

The key takeaway is that while Boston/Cambridge and the Bay Area remain the dominant epicenters of biotech jobs, the landscape is widening. Talent and companies are becoming a bit more geographically distributed, especially as remote collaboration is more feasible and as states offer incentives for relocating or expanding. The pandemic demonstrated that some work – e.g., data analysis, regulatory writing – can be done from anywhere, leading a few companies to hire remote employees who live outside of main hubs. Nonetheless, the nature of lab and manufacturing work requires physical presence, so clusters still matter a great deal.

This clustering has implications for job seekers: those willing to move to hub regions like Boston, SF, San Diego, etc., have access to a greater density of biotech opportunities. But increasingly, opportunities exist in multiple regions, making the field less geographically exclusive than before. For the industry, the dispersion can ease some cost pressure (hiring in North Carolina or Texas can be cheaper than in Cambridge, for example) and can tap into new pools of talent (keeping Midwestern scientists in their home state rather than all migrating to coasts).

To illustrate the regional dynamics and challenges, the next section will present case studies of two leading hubs (Massachusetts and North Carolina) as well as a company-level case study (Moderna and the mRNA boom) to personalize the broader trends described so far.

---

Case Studies: Perspectives from Key Hubs and Companies

Case Study 1: Massachusetts – Leading Hub Faces a Cooldown

Background: Massachusetts, and specifically the Boston-Cambridge area, has been synonymous with biotech leadership. The state’s biotech sector saw explosive growth over the past decade, becoming an economic cornerstone. Kendall Square in Cambridge is often nicknamed “the most innovative square mile on the planet” due to the density of biotech companies clustered near MIT. Massachusetts attracted not only homegrown startups but also major investments from big pharma (many global pharma companies established R&D centers in Cambridge to tap the talent). By 2022, Massachusetts had roughly 106,000 biopharma industry jobs (according to MassBio estimates) and had consistently ranked #1 in biotech venture funding and NIH funding per capita.

The Boom: Through the late 2010s and into 2021, Massachusetts enjoyed an unprecedented boom. The state’s life sciences workforce grew 8.5% in 2022 alone ( www.axios.com), one of the fastest growth rates in the nation. Even in 2020 during COVID, Massachusetts gained jobs as companies like Moderna ramped up. Unemployment in biotech was nearly nonexistent; companies faced fierce competition for talent, driving salaries even higher. Lab space in the Boston area became incredibly tight – vacancy rates fell below 5% at one point, and new lab construction surged.

Massachusetts also became a center for rare disease drug development and advanced therapies. With a dense network of hospitals and patient communities, many biotech firms working on orphan drugs set up in MA. This gave the state a leadership in cutting-edge areas like gene therapy. Additionally, the state’s emphasis on education and training (with institutions like Harvard, MIT, and specialized programs at community colleges) kept the talent pipeline flowing.

2023–2025 Headwinds: The tide began to shift in 2023. A combination of global and local factors led to a noticeable cooling in Massachusetts’ biotech job market. According to a 2025 MassBio report, companies in the state have reduced funding, laid off workers, and postponed acquisitions amid economic uncertainty ( www.axios.com). The previously torrid pace of expansion slowed dramatically. In 2024, Massachusetts recorded only a 0.1% growth in its biopharma workforce, effectively stagnation ( www.axios.com). More concerning was the loss of some roles: R&D and biomanufacturing employment declined in the state for the first time in over a decade ( www.axios.com).

Why the sudden stagnation? A few reasons stand out:

• Venture Capital Pullback: As noted, VC funding in Massachusetts biotechs fell in 2022 and 2023 compared to 2021 highs. Less capital meant fewer new startups and existing ones had to conserve cash. Some startups that might have expanded or hired 50 employees ended up hiring far fewer or freezing hiring. The Axios Boston report in January 2025 highlighted that while funding did bounce back to $7.8B in 2024 ( www.axios.com), the preceding dip had forced belt-tightening. The 2024 rebound in funding has yet to fully translate into hiring, possibly because companies first used funds to extend their financial runway rather than immediately staff up.

• Policy and Political Uncertainty: A unique factor for Massachusetts has been uncertainty around U.S. health policy with a new administration in 2025. Specifically, the nomination of a prominent vaccine skeptic (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) to lead HHS caused alarm in this science-driven industry ( www.axios.com). Although this is a political scenario, biotech executives in MA openly worried it could “complicate drug approvals” ( www.axios.com) and create a hostile climate for biomedical innovation. Such concerns can make companies hesitant to initiate expensive new programs or hiring. Additionally, proposals by the administration for import tariffs (or drug pricing interventions) introduced further uncertainty about future revenues and supply chain costs ( www.axios.com). Massachusetts, with its heavy focus on pharmaceuticals, felt these concerns acutely. A MassBio briefing warned that the industry could “miss out on over $463 million in 2025 if current funding trends persist” ( www.axios.com), underscoring the tangible impact of policy and funding shifts.

• Lab Space and Cost Issues: By 2023–24, Massachusetts had built a lot of new lab space expecting continued growth. When growth paused, there was a bit of an overhang of real estate. Biotech companies with cash constraints started subleasing excess lab space or downsizing footprints to cut costs. As CBRE noted, average lab space per employee dropped as companies “right-sized” operations ( www.cbre.com). This is a symptom of companies operating more efficiently (or frugally). For employees, this sometimes meant consolidating teams, and occasionally, job eliminations if two teams merged into one lab.

• Notable Layoffs/Closures: A number of high-profile Massachusetts biotechs announced layoffs in 2023–2024. Besides Moderna’s cost-cutting move (10% workforce layoff in 2025) ( www.reuters.com), others included Biogen restructuring after some clinical failures, and a range of smaller biotechs (often those whose lead drug failed a trial) either cutting jobs or even shutting down. Yet, even in layoffs, the Massachusetts market often sees talent recycled quickly – laid-off scientists frequently get absorbed by other biotechs or pharma companies in the area, given the general demand for their skills.

Current Perspective: Industry leaders in Massachusetts remain optimistic that the slowdown is temporary. MassBio’s president, Kendalle Burlin O’Connell, struck a tone of “cautious optimism” about the future despite acknowledging the downturn ( www.axios.com). The fundamentals – world-class universities, a culture of entrepreneurship, substantial NIH funding (over $3 billion annually to MA institutions), and an ecosystem of experienced personnel – are still in place. The hope is that as the broader economy stabilizes and if supportive policies resume, Massachusetts will return to growth. In 2025, new developments like the growth of AI in biotech (Boston has many AI-driven drug discovery startups), and areas like pandemic preparedness (the state hosts a new ARPA-H office focusing on breakthrough health projects) may spur hiring again.

One ongoing challenge Massachusetts acknowledges is maintaining its workforce pipeline and diversity. The state has launched multiple initiatives, from high school STEM programs to diversity pledges, to try to widen the funnel of who enters biotech careers. The talent crunch means the state can ill afford to leave any demographic underutilized. So far, progress has been modest – e.g., there’s still a stark gender and racial gap in C-suites ( www.bio-rad.com) – but companies large and small are increasingly aware of the issue.

Outlook: Massachusetts is likely to remain the bellwether of the U.S. biotech job market. If things pick up here, it’s a sign of a broader sectoral rebound. Conversely, continued stagnation or decline in Massachusetts would be a warning sign. As of October 2025, the state’s biotech firms are in a “wait and see” mode: hiring selectively (especially for critical roles), focusing on core projects, and lobbying for favorable policies. The case of Massachusetts illustrates that even the mightiest cluster is not immune to global funding swings and policy context. It also shows how quickly the biotech labor market can swing from hyper-demand (talent shortages, rapid hiring) to a balanced or even employer-favorable market where job seekers face more competition – all within a span of a couple of years.

Case Study 2: North Carolina – Building a Biomanufacturing Powerhouse

Background: North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park (RTP) region has quietly become a major life sciences hub. Unlike Boston or San Francisco, which are known mostly for R&D and startups, North Carolina built its biotech strength initially through manufacturing and production. In the 1990s and 2000s, big pharmaceutical companies like GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Biogen established manufacturing facilities in NC to take advantage of the lower costs and favorable business climate. Simultaneously, NC grew indigenous companies (like Biogen’s roots in RTP, and Quintiles in clinical research). The state invested early in workforce training: the NC Community College System launched a Biotechnology training program (BioWork) which became a national model for preparing workers for biomanufacturing jobs. The state also set up the NC Biotechnology Center (a public-private initiative) to promote industry growth, making NC one of the most proactive states in nurturing biotech.

The Growth: By the late 2010s, North Carolina was seeing across-the-board expansion in life sciences – in research, manufacturing, and clinical research services (the CRO industry, with players like IQVIA and Syneos based there). From 2018 to 2023, NC added thousands of biotech jobs, reaching a historic high of over 100,000 direct life science jobs in 2023 ( www.ncbiotech.org). That milestone was celebrated as NC joining the top tier of biotech states. What’s notable is that every major subsector grew (from research labs to agricultural biotech) and NC’s growth was double-digit percentage over four years, outpacing national averages ( www.ncbiotech.org).

A central driver of the job growth is the wave of large manufacturing investments NC secured. A few examples illustrate the magnitude:

• Novo Nordisk’s $2B+ facilities: The Danish pharma giant built a huge insulin manufacturing campus in Clayton, NC, and in 2023 announced a further $4.1 billion expansion for a new active ingredient plant in the Triangle region ( www.axios.com). This single project is expected to create on the order of 1,000 jobs (direct and indirect) and is the largest life science capital investment in NC’s history.

• Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies: This contract manufacturer chose Holly Springs, NC for a massive new plant. By late 2025, Fujifilm opened its $3.2 billion biotechnology manufacturing facility there ( www.axios.com). While planning predated recent tariff considerations, its opening aligns with the trend of “reshoring” pharma production. The facility will produce bulk drug substances for clients, with a workforce of hundreds (and likely growing to a thousand over time).

• Amgen and Lilly investments: In 2021, Amgen announced its first manufacturing site in NC (Holly Springs) with an initial $550M investment, then expanded it by $1B in 2024 adding 355 more jobs ( www.axios.com). Separately, in 2022 Eli Lilly started constructing a major injectable drug manufacturing site in Concord, NC. Lilly’s subsequent $5 billion investment in Virginia in 2025 ( www.reuters.com) (just over the NC border) shows the region’s attractiveness for such facilities.

• Biogen’s RTP expansion: A legacy RTP company, Biogen, revealed in mid-2025 plans to invest $2 billion to add a new manufacturing facility in RTP ( www.axios.com), its eighth in NC. This will enhance capacity for biologics production (potentially for Alzheimer’s treatments or gene therapies).

These investments collectively amount to tens of billions of dollars and are spread over several years of construction and ramp-up. Each one creates a wave of hiring – from engineers and construction workers during the build-out, to technicians, maintenance, quality, and scientists when operational. The NC Biotechnology Center’s 2024 report explicitly linked these investments to the state’s rising job count and cited “strong wage premiums” they generate ( www.ncbiotech.org) (meaning these are high-paying jobs injecting income into local communities). Indeed, the average life science salary in NC was about $108,000 in 2022, far above the state average of ~$58,000 ( www.ncbiotech.org).

Why NC excels in biomanufacturing: Several factors make North Carolina an attractive place for biotech production and thus job creation:

• Workforce training and availability: NC’s community colleges offer specialized programs in sterile drug manufacturing, bioprocessing, etc. Pharmaceutical companies have confidence that they can hire a ready-trained local workforce. This addresses one of the biggest concerns companies have (the nationwide talent shortage in manufacturing). NC has effectively mitigated that by creating talent pipelines.

• Cost advantages: Labor and land are cheaper than in the Northeast or California. Additionally, energy costs and tax rates are relatively favorable. Lower cost doesn’t necessarily mean lower quality – NC has a right-to-work environment and tends to maintain good labor productivity and stability, which appeals for long-term operations.

• Central location for distribution: Being on the East Coast with good transportation (air cargo out of Raleigh-Durham and Greensboro; ports in Wilmington nearby) helps with distribution of products domestically and to Europe.

• State incentives: North Carolina’s government historically provides incentive packages (tax rebates, infrastructure support) for big projects. For example, to land the Fujifilm plant, state and local officials assembled over $100M in incentives. These approaches lower the initial cost for companies to choose NC over another location.

• Quality of life: RTP region is often cited as a pleasant, affordable place to live, which helps attract and retain employees. When companies consider moving operations, they note if their current employees would be willing to relocate. Many find RTP an easy sell compared to very expensive metro areas.

Current Landscape in NC (2025): While NC is thriving, it’s not entirely immune to the broader trends. For instance, some small NC-based biotechs have felt the funding crunch too, leading to slower hiring in the R&D segment. But because NC’s base of companies skews towards larger, established firms and service companies (CROs, CMOs) that have stable contracts, the job market held up better. In fact, North Carolina is mentioned as having largely avoided the kind of layoffs seen in some other regions. The unemployment rate for biotech roles in NC remains quite low (locals frequently report it’s hard to find unemployed biotech scientists unless by choice).

The main challenge NC faces is still talent supply – ironically, its own success exacerbates its talent needs. The NC Biotech Center report emphasized that each subsector was growing double-digits and beating national growth ( www.ncbiotech.org), which is fantastic, but to sustain that the state must continuously expand its labor pool. The “100,000 jobs” is celebrated, but the next 100,000 may be tougher if migration or education doesn’t keep up. Already, companies in NC sometimes have to recruit from out-of-state (even internationally) for specialized positions like Ph.D.-level bioprocess engineers or regulatory heads. There is competition with other states also – for example, some projects NC was vying for went to neighboring states like Virginia or Georgia which are now in the game with their own incentives.

One interesting note is that NC’s growth hasn’t only been in manufacturing; the state is building its R&D credibility too. For instance, Durham has a growing cluster of gene therapy and gene editing startups (due to science from Duke and UNC). And companies like LabCorp (now renamed as Fortrea for its drug development arm) in Burlington, NC, and SAS Institute’s life science division in Cary, NC, indicate a presence in data and analytics for healthcare. This diversifying of roles means NC isn’t just about plant jobs, but also about innovation and tech-driven biotech work.

Outlook: North Carolina seems poised for continued growth, possibly making it the third-largest biotech state within a few years (it’s currently around 7th by jobs, but catching up to states like Pennsylvania or New Jersey at 3rd/4th is plausible if trends persist ( www.ncbiotech.org)). The state’s strategy aligning workforce training, economic incentives, and public-private partnerships is often touted as a formula that other regions are trying to emulate. For example, Pennsylvania and Maryland have boosted their focus on biomanufacturing training seeing NC’s lead. NC’s challenge will be sustaining growth if national/international conditions deteriorate – e.g., if the push for domestic manufacturing were to wane or if a global recession cut demand for pharma products.

But given demographics (aging populations need more meds) and industry pipelines (many new biologics coming to market), the demand for production capacity should remain strong. NC, in essence, has carved out the role of bio factory for America, and that likely ensures a steady stream of jobs, somewhat insulated from the ups and downs of speculative R&D. It’s a complementary role to places like Massachusetts – Massachusetts might invent the drug, and North Carolina might manufacture it at scale. Both are crucial and employ different segments of the workforce. In the long term, NC is also cultivating more of the inventing part too, which could make it a well-rounded cluster.

This case demonstrates how a region with foresight and investment can emerge as a biotech employment leader even without the academic firepower of a Harvard or Stanford in its backyard. It provides a blueprint that other emerging hubs (like Texas or Illinois) might follow to boost their shares of biotech jobs.

Case Study 3: Moderna and the mRNA Vaccine Boom – A Double-Edged Sword

Background: Moderna, a biotechnology company based in Cambridge, MA, exemplifies a meteoric rise and subsequent adjustment that many biotech firms experienced on a smaller scale. Founded in 2010 to pioneer messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics, Moderna spent years as a clinical-stage company with no approved products. It grew steadily but modestly in its early years, employing a few hundred R&D staff and flying under the radar of the broader public.

Pandemic Breakthrough: The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 was a pivotal moment for Moderna and mRNA technology. Virtually overnight, Moderna became a household name as it raced to develop an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. With substantial U.S. government support (through Operation Warp Speed) and scientific agility, Moderna brought a highly effective vaccine (mRNA-1273, now Spikevax) to market in December 2020. This success transformed Moderna from a mid-size biotech into a commercial vaccine producer almost overnight. The company scaled up manufacturing via partnerships and built out its workforce at unprecedented speed to meet global vaccine demand.

Job Growth: Between 2020 and 2022, Moderna’s headcount exploded. It grew from around 800 employees pre-pandemic to over 3,000 by 2021, and then continued upward, crossing ~4,000 by 2022. By early 2023, Moderna had about 4,500–5,000 employees globally. These hires spanned manufacturing (Moderna established production contracts and in-house capacity for mRNA and lipid nanoparticle manufacturing), supply chain and distribution, quality control (every batch of vaccine had to be tested extensively), as well as corporate functions like sales (liaising with governments for vaccine contracts) and medical affairs to track safety. It also significantly expanded R&D, flush with cash from vaccine sales revenue that reached tens of billions of dollars in 2021.

Moderna became one of the biggest recruiters in the Boston area during that period. It was actively poaching talent from other companies and academia, offering compelling missions and compensation. The urgency of the pandemic meant certain bureaucratic hurdles in hiring (like lengthy interview processes, etc.) were minimized; people were often onboarded quickly. Moreover, Moderna’s stock price soared in 2021, making its equity compensation very attractive and minting new millionaires among early employees.

Spillover Effects: Moderna’s growth also rippled to other firms. It validated mRNA technology, leading to a wave of new startups and projects in the mRNA/RNA therapeutics space which also hired scientists (e.g., companies like CureVac, BioNTech’s U.S. partnerships, and numerous smaller ventures). It also benefited manufacturing contractors (such as Lonza, which partnered with Moderna and had to staff up an mRNA production wing). Staffing firms in Massachusetts reported intense competition for biomanufacturing expertise – a previously niche skill (working with mRNA) was suddenly in hot demand.

The Post-Peak Challenge: As the acute phase of the pandemic subsided and global vaccination rates stabilized, demand for COVID-19 vaccines declined from its 2021 peak. For Moderna, which by now relied almost entirely on vaccine sales for revenue, this posed a challenge. In 2022 and especially 2023, sales fell sharply. For instance, by Q2 2023, Moderna’s quarterly revenue was down 94% from the same quarter in 2022 as large government vaccine orders wound down ( www.reuters.com). Suddenly, Moderna had excess manufacturing capacity and a large workforce relative to its immediate needs.

The company attempted to pivot: it plowed money into expanding its R&D pipeline (with numerous mRNA vaccines and therapeutics for other diseases under development) to prepare for a post-COVID future. It also sought new markets for boosters and international sales. However, with declining income, it faced the reality that it needed to reduce spending to remain financially sustainable for the long term.

Cost-Cutting and Layoffs: In mid-2023, signals emerged that Moderna would need to streamline. By late 2024, Moderna began scaling back some vaccine R&D ambitions (for example, slowing development on certain non-core vaccines) as reported by industry observers ( www.axios.com). The big news came in July 2025: Moderna announced it would lay off about 10% of its workforce (approximately 800 employees) to cut costs ( www.reuters.com). The CEO’s internal memo outlined a plan to reduce operating expenses by ~$1.5 billion by 2027 ( www.reuters.com). Areas impacted included parts of research (some programs winding down as trials finished) and manufacturing (some production lines scaled back after fulfilling initial contracts) ( www.reuters.com). The company was effectively resizing to a new steady state – focusing on core pipelines like an mRNA flu-COVID combo vaccine, and jettisoning or pausing less promising projects and associated staff.

This layoff announcement was significant not just for Moderna but as a symbol in the biotech industry. It marked the end of the “warp-speed” expansion era and a transition to a more measured approach. Many biotech workers saw it as indicative of a broader normalization: what goes up rapidly can come down (to a degree) when market conditions change.

However, a couple of points soften the picture:

• Moderna’s layoff, while sizable, left it with roughly 4,500+ employees, which is still orders of magnitude higher than pre-pandemic. So the net job creation over 5 years remains huge. The reductions were aimed at eliminating inefficiencies and focusing resources.

• The talent released by Moderna likely remains in the biotech ecosystem. Those with mRNA experience are valuable to other companies exploring similar tech. Within Boston, it’s probable that many laid-off Moderna staff found opportunities at smaller mRNA startups, at Pfizer’s expanding mRNA unit (Pfizer partnered with BioNTech but also doing its own), or even pivoted to other modalities. The biotech community often recirculates talent after a big company downsizes – indeed, it can be a chance for startups to hire people they otherwise couldn’t get.

Implications and Insights: Moderna’s case provides a few insights relevant to the job market:

• Volatility of Demand: Biotech companies tied to a single product (especially one tied to a potential one-time event like a pandemic) can experience extreme swings in hiring needs. This is a reminder that even “hot” biotech skills can see fluctuating demand. For employees, it underscores the value of versatile skills and adaptability.

• Role of Government and Policy: Moderna’s growth was massively accelerated by government funding and procurement. Conversely, an absence of continued government purchases (once the acute pandemic phase ended) meant a drop in demand. Many biotech jobs, especially in public health-related areas, can be influenced by policy decisions and public funding.

• Regional Impact: For Cambridge/Boston, Moderna’s downsizing was a minor blip in a still huge sector, but it did contribute to the overall sense in 2025 that the market was cooling. Compared to adding thousands of jobs earlier, now even stable or slightly reduced headcounts at anchors like Moderna affects the regional growth statistics (hence MassBio’s 0.1% growth in 2024 includes such events).

• Future Outlook for mRNA field: Moderna’s right-sizing doesn’t mean mRNA jobs will vanish; in fact, the technology has proven its worth, and both Moderna and others are pursuing a plethora of mRNA vaccines (for flu, RSV, cancer, etc.). If a fraction of those succeed, there could be another renaissance in mRNA hiring. For now, though, companies and investors are more cautious – requiring evidence of success beyond COVID. This cautious phase may last a couple of years. During this time, professionals with mRNA expertise might choose to join more secure employers (like established pharma) which are still investing in mRNA, rather than risk startups, until the next breakthrough emerges.

In summary, Moderna’s story from 2020 to 2025 encapsulates the boom-bust cycle on a micro level: A scientific breakthrough led to exponential job growth; then market saturation and consolidation led to a correction. The company is far from bust – it’s fundamentally strong and working on many products – but it had to recalibrate its workforce to align with realistic post-pandemic business expectations. Many biotech companies (though on smaller scales) experienced similar patterns, especially those tied to COVID-related products (e.g., some testing companies ramped up and later shrank). The sector as a whole thus underwent a collective adjustment by 2025 from the fever pitch of 2020–21 to a more sustainable cadence.

---

Key Drivers Shaping the Biotech Job Market

Having examined the composition of the biotech workforce and specific regional/company scenarios, we now analyze the major forces and trends that drive changes in the biotech employment landscape. These drivers explain why the job market expands or contracts and hint at what to expect going forward.

1. Capital Investment Cycles and Funding Environment

Venture Capital and IPO Markets: Biotech is an industry heavily reliant on investment, especially for early-stage companies that might operate for years without products on the market. Thus, the availability of venture capital (VC) and the health of the public stock markets (for IPOs and follow-on offerings) are major determinants of biotech hiring. When capital is abundant, startups form and grow rapidly, and existing companies scale up ambitious programs – all requiring more staff. When capital tightens, companies shift into survival mode, often meaning hiring freezes or layoffs.

The period 2020–2021 illustrated the boom: global and U.S. biotech VC funding hit all-time highs (e.g. >$30 billion VC raised by U.S. biotechs in 2021 by some estimates), and over 100 biotech IPOs occurred in those two years. This translated into robust job creation. By contrast, 2022 saw a sharp contraction: only a handful of biotech IPOs got done, and those that did were often significantly downsized (biotech IPO proceeds in 2022 were down ~93% from 2021 levels ( www.axios.com)). VC funding also retrenched, especially for later-stage rounds. As a result, many companies that would have gone public or raised big private rounds instead had to scale back plans, directly impacting hiring. It was noted by an investor that “biotech IPOs plunged 93% in 2022 compared to the previous year” ( www.axios.com) and that this was due to investor skepticism after some high-profile disappointments. Fewer IPOs also mean fewer new public companies flush with cash to spend on expansion. In 2020–21, every IPO often meant tens of millions of dollars going into R&D and new jobs; in 2022, that engine stalled.

The downturn extended into 2023 for many. Companies responded by conserving cash – delaying non-critical hires, reducing consultancy and contractor use, and sometimes cutting staff to extend their runway. A common refrain from CEOs in late 2022 was “we have to make our existing cash last 2+ years because funding is uncertain.” Some companies also pursued mergers or acquisitions as exits instead of IPOs, which can lead to overlapping roles and subsequent job redundancies.

By 2024, there were early signs of the funding environment stabilizing and even picking back up in niches. For instance, Massachusetts saw venture funding tick up again in 2024 ( www.axios.com), and some biotech IPOs returned in late 2023/2024 (though at smaller scales). This has a lagging effect – first the capital comes in, then over subsequent quarters companies deploy it (hiring new teams, starting new trials). So a modest improvement in funding in 2024 is expected to lead to a modest uptick in job postings in 2025.

Large Pharmaceutical Company Spending: Another capital aspect is how much big pharmaceutical firms are investing in R&D and acquisitions. Large pharma (which collectively has hundreds of billions in revenue) often “externalizes” R&D by partnering with or acquiring biotechs. When pharma profits are strong and cash reserves high, they tend to pour more into deals and partnerships, which can fuel biotech growth (through milestone payments, buyouts leading to scaling of programs, etc.). 2022–2023 saw mixed results: some pharma had windfalls from COVID product sales (like Pfizer, which then invested in a series of partnerships and acquisitions), while others faced patent cliffs and became more selective. The latter half of 2023 into 2024 actually saw a surge in pharma M&A and partnerships, as big pharma looked to fill pipelines ahead of patent expirations for blockbuster drugs by 2030 ( www.reuters.com). For example, several $5–10 billion acquisitions of mid-size biotechs (like Pfizer’s buy of Biohaven, Amgen’s deal for Horizon) were announced. These can have complex effects on jobs: sometimes jobs are cut due to overlap after buyouts, but in other cases, acquisitions save jobs by providing resources to continue R&D that a smaller company couldn’t fund. Moreover, acquisitions often lead big pharma to invest in new facilities or move projects into later stages, creating jobs elsewhere (like manufacturing for a newly acquired drug).

In short, capital drives biotech employment cycles, and of late the cycle has been down then slowly up. Analysts widely expect that by 2025-2026, if interest rates stabilize or drop and if some biotech successes emerge, investor appetite will return more strongly (biotech is inherently cyclical). As one venture capitalist remarked in late 2023, the sector will rebound but companies must “prove their value… to avoid running out of funding” ( www.axios.com) – underscoring that prudent use of capital (and hence cautious hiring) is the mode until a clear uptick in investor enthusiasm.

2. Government Policy and Regulatory Environment

Policy decisions, particularly at the federal level, heavily influence the biotech industry’s trajectory and thus its job market. This happens through multiple channels:

Research Funding (NIH and others): The National Institutes of Health is the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research. Its budget (around $47 billion in FY2023) supports labs across the country and indirectly supports biotech by producing new discoveries and trained scientists. When NIH funding grows, it typically correlates with increased hiring in research labs and often more spin-out companies (as academic breakthroughs get commercialized). Conversely, sharp cuts or freezes in NIH funding can reduce hiring in academic research and curtail early discovery that feeds biotech pipelines. A scenario occurred in 2025: sharp reductions in federal research budgets under a new administration led to mass layoffs at NIH and other agencies ( www.reuters.com). This not only directly cut jobs at those agencies, but as Reuters reported, it “deeply impacted small- and mid-cap biotech companies” reliant on NIH grants and a steady flow of new findings ( www.reuters.com). If policy results in less scientific research output, biotech startups may have less intellectual property to build on in the long run, potentially slowing formation of new companies and hiring. Therefore, consistent and robust investment in science funding is generally a boon for biotech jobs, while austerity in science can be a headwind.

FDA Regulatory Climate: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the gatekeeper for approving new drugs, biologics, and medical devices. The efficiency and rigor of the FDA’s process directly affects how quickly companies can bring products to market (and thus how they plan their hiring). In a stable, science-driven regulatory environment, companies have confidence to invest in trials and manufacturing because they expect a fair shot at approval if data is good. However, uncertainty in the FDA – due to leadership changes, politicization, or understaffing – can spook companies. In 2025, for instance, there were reports of “upheaval at the FDA” with leadership turnover and even layoffs of key personnel ( www.reuters.com). Such instability can deter future biotech investment; Reuters noted analysts warning that loss of a “stable, science-based regulatory environment could stifle innovation and delay new treatments” ( www.reuters.com). If approvals slow down due to lack of staff or inconsistent policies (e.g., if an FDA takes an unexpectedly harsh stance on certain drug classes), biotech firms might slow their R&D spend and by extension hiring (why hire more scientists if the path to approval is blocked or unclear?).

Additionally, regulatory policy like accelerated approval pathways (for serious diseases) or new guidelines for areas like gene therapy also shape the field. Generally, policies that streamline approvals (without compromising safety) encourage more biotech projects – meaning more jobs – whereas unpredictable or overly burdensome regulatory hurdles can kill programs and the jobs working on them.

Drug Pricing and Market Access Policies: The U.S. recently enacted the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) with provisions to allow Medicare to negotiate prices on certain high-revenue drugs. This is set to start affecting a few drugs by 2026 and more in subsequent years. While intended to reduce costs for patients, the biotech and pharma industry have argued it might reduce profitability of drugs, especially for small molecules, and thus reduce the incentive for R&D investment. This debate is ongoing, but some biotech CEOs have cited potential pricing controls as a reason to be cautious about developing drugs in certain categories, which could ultimately impact jobs if companies scale back projects. Furthermore, proposals like international reference pricing or restrictive formulary designs also worry investors.

In 2025, concerns about tariffs and pricing were on the radar ( www.axios.com). For example, if the U.S. government imposed import tariffs on drugs or ingredients (perhaps to incentivize domestic production), it could increase manufacturing costs and prices, as PhRMA warned ( www.reuters.com). For biotech companies, higher costs or uncertain pricing means tighter margins, potentially forcing cost control measures including limiting hiring or cutting jobs to maintain profitability. On the flip side, the government implementing incentives (like tax breaks for orphan drugs or extended exclusivity for certain innovative meds) can spur more development and jobs in those areas.

Immigration Policy: Biotech is an international field; a considerable fraction of scientists in U.S. graduate programs and biotech companies are immigrants or foreign-born. U.S. immigration and visa policies thus play a role in talent availability. Policies that restrict visas (for example, making H-1B visas harder to obtain, or limiting work permits for spouses, etc.) can strain the talent pool. The Trump administration (2017-2020) had tightened some visa rules, which some tech and biotech companies said made recruiting global talent harder. By contrast, more open policies can alleviate talent shortages. In 2023–2024, immigration was not drastically changed either way, but continuing resolution of visa issues (like eliminating green card backlogs for advanced degree holders in STEM) is something industry advocates push for to strengthen the workforce.

National Strategic Initiatives: Sometimes, the government launches targeted initiatives that directly create jobs. A case in point is the National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative (NBBI) launched in 2022 with an executive order ( www.whitehouse.gov). This initiative is aimed at expanding domestic biomanufacturing capabilities (for economic and security reasons). As part of it, in mid-2023 the White House released an action plan to expand the biotech workforce including investments in education and training programs ( www.whitehouse.gov). Funding from such an initiative can set up new training centers, apprenticeship programs, or even government-subsidized hiring incentives, all of which can boost employment. For example, the initiative specifically mentions “preparing more Americans for these jobs – many of which do not require a four-year degree” ( www.whitehouse.gov), implying support for creating clearer pathways for technical jobs in biotech manufacturing, which could help fill thousands of open positions and bring new people into the field. If fully implemented and funded, the NBBI could significantly bolster the biotech workforce and reduce the talent gap, which in turn allows companies to expand more readily.

Trade and Global Considerations: U.S. biotech doesn’t operate in isolation. Trade policies affect the supply chain (e.g., tariffs on imported lab equipment or raw materials can raise costs; export controls on technology can complicate cross-border collaborations). In recent discourse, there’s a notion of biosecurity and onshoring critical biotech production (similar to movements in semiconductors). The U.S. government has considered measures to ensure critical medicines and vaccine components are made domestically. This push can lead to incentives for building plants in the U.S. (good for U.S. jobs) but could also result in tariffs or restrictions that complicate companies’ global operations (creating inefficiencies and potentially limiting growth). For instance, tariff threats on pharmaceuticals were mentioned as a driver for companies like Amgen to invest in U.S. plants ( www.reuters.com); that’s a positive for domestic jobs at the cost of possibly some increased production cost.

Pandemic and Health Emergency Policy: The management of health emergencies by government also influences biotech. The government’s massive purchase of vaccines was essentially a one-time employment boost (e.g., Operation Warp Speed indirectly created or sustained tens of thousands of biotech and pharma jobs). Future handling of pandemics (or absence thereof) will similarly have labor market effects.

In essence, a supportive, stable policy environment tends to promote biotech growth and hiring, whereas unpredictability or adversity in policy can have a chilling effect. The Axios report on China’s rise warns that “without proactive U.S. policy changes to support homegrown R&D,” Chinese dominance will grow ( www.axios.com), a view shared by many that continuous investment and favorable policy is needed to keep the U.S. biotech sector growing, otherwise jobs could shift overseas.

3. Technological Innovation and Scientific Trends

The very nature of biotech means that scientific breakthroughs and new technologies can rapidly create new sub-industries – and new types of jobs – while making some older approaches less relevant. The biotech job market is therefore responsive to what’s hot in science.

Emerging Modalities (Gene Therapy, Cell Therapy, RNA): In the last decade, we’ve seen gene therapy and CAR-T cell therapy go from experimental to approved treatments. Each new modality demands specialized skills. For instance, cell therapy manufacturing is quite different from traditional pill manufacturing – it’s more akin to a hospital-like process (handling patient cells), leading to high demand for people trained in cell culture techniques at scale. As dozens of CAR-T and other cell therapies are in development, companies have built manufacturing suites and hired technicians, but many report that finding enough experienced cell therapy technologists is challenging. Training programs specifically for cell and gene therapy manufacturing (like those in Philadelphia and NC) are expanding to meet this need. Likewise, gene therapy development (working with viral vectors, CRISPR gene editing) requires molecular biologists and virologists; a shortage of those with vector production experience slowed some companies. Over time, as universities incorporate these topics, more workers become available.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Data Science: Possibly the most rapidly growing skill demand in biotech is for AI and computational analysis, as noted earlier. A majority of pharma and biotech executives (75%+) say they are implementing AI strategies ( www.axios.com), meaning they need talent who can do machine learning on biomedical data. This has created a crossover hiring trend: biotech companies hiring not only Ph.D. biologists but also software engineers and data scientists. Some big pharma have hundreds of AI specialists on staff now, whereas ten years ago they might have had just a handful of bioinformaticians. New companies like Insilico Medicine, Recursion Pharmaceuticals, and Exscientia have formed entire business models around AI-driven drug discovery, recruiting from top tech firms. The LinkedIn report of January 2025 highlighted that AI-related roles are the fastest-growing job titles across industries ( www.axios.com). In biotech, that specifically includes roles like Computational Chemist, Machine Learning Engineer (bioinformatics specialization), AI Ethicist (for health algorithms) etc. The full potential is still emerging: if AI can significantly reduce R&D costs or time (as hoped ( www.reuters.com)), it could accelerate projects and ironically create more jobs in the execution of larger numbers of projects (assuming companies reinvest savings into more experiments). Alternatively, it could change the nature of some jobs – e.g., maybe fewer bench chemists doing brute-force experiments and more modelers at computers.

Automation and Lab Robotics: Many labs now use robotic automation for high-throughput screening, liquid handling, etc. This does not necessarily eliminate jobs but shifts them – instead of technicians manually pipetting, you might have a robot operator/engineer who maintains and programs lab robotics. The skill set becomes more technical. Automation can raise productivity, leading companies to run more experiments with the same workforce or to scale up projects without linear headcount growth. On the manufacturing side, Industry 4.0 (IoT, automation, advanced control systems) is coming to biotech plants. This will likely mean the biotech plant worker of the future needs to be comfortable with computers and data analytics (smart manufacturing) as much as with biology.

Precision Medicine and Diagnostics: The continuing shift toward precision medicine (tailoring treatments to genetic or biomarker-defined subgroups) has expanded roles in genomic analysis, companion diagnostics development, and patient data management. Genetic counselors are a growing profession as more genomic testing is done, including in biotech companies that offer testing services. Bioinformatics specialists who can interpret large genomic datasets for patient stratification are in demand. Also, quality jobs in diagnostics and regulatory jobs focusing on diagnostics have grown as every new personalized therapy often comes with a diagnostic test. The interplay between biotech drugs and diagnostic companies has created synergy but also competition for talent across the two previously separate sectors.

Productivity of R&D: One meta-trend is the industry's focus on improving R&D productivity (often measured in cost per new approved drug). Historically, that metric has worsened (Eroom’s Law – R&D gets harder over time), but things like AI and better biomarkers offer a chance to reverse it. If R&D success rates improve, companies can afford to invest in more projects, potentially growing teams. If not, and R&D remains super expensive, companies might concentrate resources and not hire as broadly. So far, it's too early to tell but there's cautious optimism that new tools will yield productivity gains.

Scientific Focus Areas: There are also shifts in which diseases and areas are hot. For example, oncology has been the dominant area for biotech R&D jobs for a while (with immuno-oncology being huge). If one area cools (say checkpoint inhibitors became saturated as a space), companies might pivot to other areas like neurology or rare diseases. Each disease area might require certain expertise – e.g., neurology demands people skilled in neurobiology and possibly imaging, while oncology needs immunologists, etc. Companies follow science; for instance, after the success of mRNA vaccines, there’s a push to apply mRNA to cancer vaccines – requiring hiring folks who know both immunology and RNA. Similarly, the recent breakthrough in gene editing (CRISPR) being used in a clinical trial for sickle cell (potentially to be approved by 2025) could spawn an era of gene-edited cell therapies, leading to more jobs in CRISPR-based therapy development.

Educational Adaptation: Academia is responding to technological shifts by creating new programs (e.g., data science for biology masters programs, specialized biotech manufacturing degrees). Over time, this will yield a workforce more inherently versed in the latest tech, which can accelerate industry adoption further. The White House workforce plan mentions investing in community college curricula around biotech and biomanufacturing ( www.whitehouse.gov), which is directly aimed at aligning training with where innovation is going.

In sum, innovation drives new job growth in biotechnology, often requiring new skill sets. Those regions or companies that harness new technology fastest often end up with hiring booms (like Bay Area for tech-bio, or Boston for new therapy modalities). A key for the workforce is continuous learning and flexibility, as the “hot skill” in biotech can shift every few years – from PCR techniques to genome editing tools to AI analytics. As long as the pace of biotech innovation stays high (which it has – arguably even accelerating), the sector will keep creating jobs, though the nature of many jobs will evolve.

4. Global Competition and Collaboration

Biotechnology is a globally competitive field. The U.S. historically has led in biotech innovation and jobs, but other countries are investing heavily to grow their own sectors. This international context influences the U.S. job market:

Rise of China: China has made biotech a strategic priority, pouring government funding and incentives into the sector. The results are becoming evident. By 2024, China was conducting more clinical trials than the U.S. (7,100+ vs ~6,000 in 2024) ( www.axios.com), indicating a significant scale of R&D activity. Chinese biotech companies are rapidly advancing in areas like gene editing, AI-driven drug design, and biosimilars. Axios reported that 37% of molecules licensed by major pharma in 2025 are projected to originate from China ( www.axios.com), meaning big pharma is now frequently turning to Chinese innovators to fill pipelines. This is a remarkable shift – it implies a portion of what might have been jobs in U.S. discovery or development could be happening in China instead.

Chinese firms like BeiGene, Zai Lab, and others have grown to thousands of employees, some even building research outposts in the U.S. Conversely, some U.S. companies are opening R&D centers in China to capitalize on talent and cost advantages there. The competition is not zero-sum – global collaboration is also present (e.g., U.S. pharma licensing a drug from a Chinese biotech and then co-developing it, which can create some U.S. jobs too in the co-development phase). But clearly, the U.S. is no longer the sole epicenter for biotech innovation, and if investment flows increasingly to China or Europe, the U.S. job growth could slow.

U.S. policymakers have expressed concern: one report to Congress warned “China is beating the U.S. in biotech advances” and framed biotech as crucial to national security ( www.axios.com) ( www.reuters.com). There is talk of policies to ensure the U.S. doesn’t lose its edge – such as tightening IP protection, increasing R&D tax incentives, or even restricting some tech transfer to rivals. Such measures could impact jobs (for instance, more R&D tax breaks could spur hiring in U.S.; conversely if collaboration with Chinese researchers is restricted in sensitive areas, it might hamper some projects).

Other regions: Europe has a strong pharma industry (in Switzerland, UK, Germany, etc.) and an emerging biotech scene (especially in the UK and Switzerland). The EU and UK have their own initiatives to boost biotech jobs, including digital health. While Europe hasn’t grown as fast as the U.S. or China recently in biotech, it remains a competitor for talent. Cross-border movement of scientists, especially between the U.S. and Europe, is common. If immigration to the U.S. becomes difficult, scientists might choose Europe or Canada or Australia, which in turn would mean those countries benefit from their contributions and jobs created around them. So U.S. immigration friendliness can influence how global talent flows.

Global Market Access: U.S. biotech companies target global markets. Trade agreements (or disputes) that affect access to markets can influence growth. For example, if certain countries enforce strict price controls, companies may reprioritize which diseases to invest in, which indirectly affects jobs in those project areas. Also, the regulatory science cooperation internationally (e.g., FDA and European EMA harmonizing guidelines) can ease global trials and thus potentially increase efficiency (doing one trial for both approvals rather than separate – which could reduce redundant jobs in duplicative trials but free resources for other trials).

Outsourcing Trends: Over the past decades, a lot of pharmaceutical manufacturing and some R&D (like chemistry services, clinical trial monitoring, etc.) were outsourced abroad (to places like India, China, Eastern Europe) for cost reasons. Recently, due to supply chain concerns, there is a push to bring some manufacturing back to the U.S. for critical drugs (e.g., vaccines, antibiotics). We see that in the investments in domestic plants by both U.S. and foreign firms (like Fujifilm in NC, Novo Nordisk in NC – foreign firms picking U.S. soil). If this onshoring continues, it’s a positive for U.S. biotech manufacturing jobs. However, the global division of labor still means routine small-molecule drug production or generic drug production might remain mostly overseas where costs are lower. The U.S. will likely focus domestic capacity on advanced biologics and cutting-edge therapies rather than try to make everything domestically.

National Security Angle: The framing of biotech as part of national security (for example, preventing reliance on foreign sources for vaccines or for DNA sequencing technology) has gained bipartisan attention. It can lead to funding through defense or homeland security budgets for biotech projects (like DARPA funding bio-manufacturing research, or ARPA-H projects for pandemic defense). These create jobs in a perhaps less profit-dependent way, bridging academia, industry, and government labs. If geopolitical tensions remain or increase, one can expect more such funding to ensure U.S. self-reliance in biotech. This would buffer the industry somewhat from purely market-driven fluctuations.

Brain Drain / Brain Gain: The U.S. has historically benefited from a “brain gain” – top scientists from around the world coming to U.S. universities and often staying to work in industry or start companies. If that continues, it’s a boon for the job market as it continuously refreshes with new skilled workers and entrepreneurs. If other countries start retaining their talent or attracting Americans (for instance, European grants drawing U.S. scientists, or China luring back Chinese-born U.S. educated scientists with big grants), the U.S. could see relatively fewer top minds fueling the next generation here. There’s evidence of some reverse brain drain as China’s biotech sector grows – talented people of Chinese origin trained in the West sometimes move back to lead new enterprises there. The U.S. biotech community is aware of this dynamic; hence the emphasis on keeping the U.S. an attractive location for research (through funding, social environment, etc.).

Overall, global factors inject both competitive pressure and collaborative opportunities. In 2025, one could say U.S. biotech is still leading, but with a narrower lead. This competition pushes U.S. companies to innovate faster and potentially be more efficient (which could in one perspective mean fewer jobs to do the same work if efficiency rises, but usually in growth industries efficiency enables tackling more problems, thereby still growing net employment). Should the U.S. desire to maintain dominance, it likely means continued or increased investment (public and private) in biotech – which in turn would be favorable for job growth. Conversely, complacency could see talent and capital flow elsewhere, which might lead to slower job growth domestically.

5. Workforce Dynamics: Education, Diversity, and Remote Work

Finally, it’s crucial to discuss some intrinsic workforce dynamics that affect the biotech job market’s health:

Education and Training Mismatch: As noted, the U.S. is producing record numbers of life sciences graduates ( www.cbre.com). However, companies often voice that many grads lack industry-specific skills (GMP procedures, regulatory knowledge, etc.). This mismatch can lead to the paradox of “talent shortage” amid plenty of degree holders. The push to integrate more industry-relevant training into curricula is ongoing. Programs like co-op internships (Northeastern University’s model), bootcamps for lab techniques, or specialized Master’s degrees (e.g. in regulatory affairs or biotech management) have proliferated. Over time, these should ease hiring since new entrants will be more job-ready. A metric to watch is how many new programs are accredited and graduates output – early indications are positive, but the 2023 Workforce Trends report still underscores the need for “close relationships with colleges” to align training with demand ( innovatebio.org).

Continued Professional Development: Biotech jobs often require continuous learning due to rapid scientific advances. Employers that provide robust training and upskilling opportunities tend to have more adaptable workforces. Some large companies have in-house “universities” or reimburse courses. Such practices can help re-skill employees whose current project might end (so they can move to a different project rather than be laid off). This flexibility can reduce the severity of job market swings – rather than fire and hire entirely new skill sets, companies can retrain some staff. The ability of the workforce to pivot skills (say a virologist shifting to work on gene therapy vectors) is part of what keeps unemployment low in biotech even when certain segments slow.

Diversity and Inclusion Efforts: We touched on the lack of representation in leadership and certain roles for women and minorities ( www.bio-rad.com). Addressing this is not only an equity issue but also a workforce supply issue. If entire demographics are underutilized or leave the field due to lack of inclusion, that shrinks the available talent pool. Over the last few years, biotech firms have set hiring goals for underrepresented groups, launched mentorship programs, and tracked metrics on diversity. Some venture funds are focusing on funding diverse founders, which should gradually diversify leadership. Progress is slow but visible: e.g., women CEOs of biotech startups are more common now than a decade ago, but still far below parity.

A MassBio survey in late 2023 found that less than half of the companies had made significant progress on their DEI goals ( www.axios.com), suggesting persistent gaps. Achieving more inclusive workplaces could improve retention (for example, women have sometimes left the industry mid-career due to glass-ceiling frustrations; fixing that could retain talented mid/senior scientists and prevent labor shortages at those levels). Also, reaching out to historically black colleges, tribal colleges, and other minority-serving institutions for recruitment is a strategy some companies adopted to diversify their talent pipeline. If fruitful, this could alleviate some labor shortages by engaging communities that were previously not well-tapped into biotech careers.

Remote and Hybrid Work: The pandemic forced even lab-based industries to experiment with remote arrangements for any tasks that could be done off-site. While you cannot do wet lab work from home, many biotech companies discovered that functions like data analysis, writing, regulatory submissions, patent work, even certain types of collaborations could be done remotely or in a hybrid model. The 2023 trends report noted how the industry “embraced and adapted to remote and hybrid work arrangements” ( innovatebio.org). Now, in 2025, we see a mix: research labs are largely back in person, but companies have kept flexibility for roles like bioinformatics or administrative support. Some companies allow scientists to work from home a day or two a week to do data analysis or writing, which has become a perk aiding retention.

The acceptance of remote work has geographic implications too – a biotech company based in San Francisco might hire a bioinformatician who lives in, say, Boise or Cleveland, if the role allows remote work. This can distribute job opportunities beyond the hubs and also gives companies access to a broader talent pool. It could moderate the extreme demand pressure in hubs (“talent clusters remain, but you can augment staff from anywhere”). That said, most biotech jobs still require physical proximity to labs or manufacturing, so the overall effect is not as drastic as in software. But even a 10-20% portion of roles being open to remote can shape hiring approaches.

Generational Change: The biotech workforce, like many, is seeing generational shifts. Seasoned baby boomers in pharma R&D are retiring, sometimes creating a leadership vacuum that Gen X or Millennials fill. This matters because transferring knowledge is crucial (to not lose expertise on certain therapies). Companies sometimes hire retirees back as consultants to mentor younger staff. Conversely, younger workers (Millennials/Gen Z) place high value on purpose-driven work (biotech fares well there), work-life balance, and progressive culture. Companies that adapt their workplace culture (flexibility, diversity, sustainability practices, etc.) may have an easier time recruiting the new generation of scientists. The Accenture 2022 report cited earlier found nearly all industry leaders see the labor shortage persisting ( www.bio-rad.com); part of solving that is making biotech an attractive career for upcoming graduates beyond just pay – which includes things like inclusive culture, clear career progression, and so forth.

Job Market Mix – Startups vs Big Companies: At any given time, a portion of biotech jobs are in risky startup ventures and others in stable big pharmas. When capital is free-flowing, startups proliferate (lots of job postings, though sometimes short-lived if funding fails). When capital contracts, large companies may be the stable havens (they might continue critical hiring even as startups freeze). Right now, in 2025, we see that shift: more talent might be flowing into big pharma or established mid-size companies as early-stage biotechs struggle for funding. Big companies like Pfizer, Novartis, etc. have announced expansions in some areas (e.g., Pfizer building out gene therapy capabilities in NC, hiring hundreds; Eli Lilly setting up an institute in Boston, etc.), partially offsetting the startup slowdown. These moves often come with significant hiring commitments (e.g., Eli Lilly’s new Virginia plant promised 300+ jobs ( www.reuters.com), albeit that’s manufacturing rather than R&D). The interplay between the entrepreneurial side and corporate side of biotech determines overall job health. Ideally, a balance where startups flourish and big companies grow yields the maximum job creation.

Bringing it all together, the biotech job market in October 2025 reflects a sector in transition: from hyper-growth to consolidation, but with strong foundational demand and optimism for future innovation-driven expansion. The workforce itself is evolving to be more skilled, more diverse, and more flexible in how and where it works. Addressing the current challenges (funding, policy, skills gap) effectively could set the stage for a renewed cycle of growth. In the next section, we will discuss what the future might hold if these factors play out favorably or unfavorably, and then conclude with overarching insights.

---

Future Outlook and Strategic Implications

Looking ahead, the U.S. biotech job market faces a mix of promising opportunities and significant challenges. Barring unforeseen shocks, most analysts and industry experts anticipate that biotechnology will remain a growth sector over the coming decade, though the rate of growth may be moderate in the near term compared to the pandemic-fueled surge. Here we outline key expectations and implications for the future:

Continued Growth and Evolving Opportunities

• Moderate Job Growth with Potential Upswings: Official projections (e.g., BLS forecasts) suggest solid but not explosive growth for core biotech-related occupations. For instance, employment of medical scientists is projected to grow ~9% from 2024 to 2034 ( www.bls.gov), and biochemists ~6% ( www.bls.gov), both faster than average for all jobs. This implies a steady pace of job creation if historical trends hold – thousands of new jobs each year in research, plus additional openings from retirements (~9,600 openings per year for medical scientists when replacement needs are included ( www.bls.gov)). Manufacturing technician roles, being more mature, might grow slower (3% for biological technicians ( www.bls.gov)), but even there significant annual openings (~9,100/year, largely replacement) persist ( www.bls.gov). In sum, unless a severe downturn hits, the sector should keep hiring, albeit at a calmer pace than 2020-2022.

• Innovation Pipeline is Strong: The number of drug candidates in development globally is at or near all-time highs across many disease areas. The U.S. has a central role in a lot of these programs. Breakthroughs in science will create new hiring spurts: for example, if CRISPR-based gene therapies begin to succeed clinically (the first approvals could happen around 2025–2026 for diseases like sickle cell), an entire subindustry of gene editing therapies could blossom. That would require rapid scaling of manufacturing, clinical expertise, and commercialization teams—translating into new job opportunities. Similarly, progress in cancer vaccines, regenerative medicine (like stem-cell therapies), or novel modalities (protein degrader drugs, microbiome therapies) would each come with workforce needs, from specialized scientists to trained sales and support staff to bring those products to market.

• Biotech as a Pillar of the Knowledge Economy: Over the past decades, sectors like manufacturing or retail didn’t grow U.S. jobs substantially, but tech and healthcare did. Biotech sits at the intersection of tech and healthcare – it’s likely to be one of the key “new economy” drivers of high-skilled employment. The recent BIO/TEConomy report emphasized that the bioscience industry “continues to enrich communities, create jobs, and grow economies across the country” ( www.prnewswire.com). Many state economic development plans now explicitly target expanding biotech footprints (seen in states from Massachusetts to Indiana to Arkansas). Thus, biotech jobs could increasingly spread out and become a more ubiquitous part of local economies, much as IT jobs did in the 2000s. This diffusion can provide resilience – if one cluster slumps, another might rise.

• Global Leadership & National Initiatives: The U.S. government’s stance suggests it will not cede biotech leadership without a fight. Policymakers are likely to increase support for critical biotech areas through initiatives like ARPA-H (the new Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, funding high-risk high-reward projects) and sustained funding for pandemic preparedness. The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 included measures to bolster STEM education and domestic research broadly; future legislation could similarly bolster the bioeconomy. If the biotech workforce action plan unveiled in 2023 is fully implemented, by later in the decade we may see a more robust and diverse pipeline of technicians and scientists entering the field ( www.whitehouse.gov). That would help alleviate skill bottlenecks and enable companies to grow faster.

• Biomanufacturing Boom Continues: The push for domestic manufacturing of biotechnology products (biopharmaceuticals, vaccines, key biomaterials) is likely to continue under the banner of supply chain resilience and national security. We’ve already seen huge investments in new plants in states like NC, VA, OH, and others ( www.reuters.com) ( www.reuters.com). These facilities will be ramping up operations into the late 2020s, each needing to hire hundreds of workers. Additionally, as new therapies are approved (like gene therapies that require new manufacturing paradigms), companies often build specific facilities for them – for example, if multiple gene therapies for different diseases get approved, expect multiple manufacturing sites to sprout to supply them. The likely result is growth in biotech manufacturing jobs outpacing R&D jobs for a period, given the high capital investment pouring into manufacturing. This shifts the composition slightly more toward production roles (which may not require advanced degrees), thus broadening access to biotech careers for those with 2-year degrees or technical training, fulfilling the “good jobs” promise for a wider segment of workers.

• AI Integration and Productivity Gains: If AI and automation significantly improve R&D efficiency, drug discovery timelines might shorten and success rates improve. Paradoxically, some worry AI could displace certain jobs (for example, do we need as many medicinal chemists if an AI helps design molecules?). In practice, it’s more likely AI will be a tool that makes each scientist more productive, enabling them to take on more projects. That could lead companies to run more concurrent programs with the same core team, rather than cut headcount. Moreover, new jobs will be created to manage and interpret AI outputs and to maintain the data/IT infrastructure. A LinkedIn analysis found many AI-related biotech roles didn’t exist a few years ago – now they do. So on balance, AI should be job-transformative but not job-destructive in biotech, with a net positive effect on job growth through increased R&D output and the spawning of AI-focused companies.

Challenges and Uncertainties

• Economic Fluctuations: A general economic downturn or recession in the broader economy (especially if tied to high interest rates or financial crises) could further constrain funding for biotech and tighten budgets for both companies and healthcare systems. In such scenarios, biotech downturns could deepen temporarily (as seen in 2001-2003 or 2008-2010 when capital dried up). However, biotech often recovers strongly afterward due to the persistent demand for new therapies. If inflation and interest rates normalize by 2024-2025, as some expect, investor risk appetite might return, helping the industry out of the current funding trough. Conversely, prolonged high rates or a market crash would delay recovery of the job market growth.

• Policy Risks: There remain open questions about U.S. healthcare policy. If aggressive drug price control measures expanded (beyond what’s in IRA), it could compel companies to reprioritize pipelines, possibly focusing only on the most profitable areas and dropping marginal ones (which could mean some job loss in shelved areas). There’s also the matter of intellectual property (IP) protection – debates around patent reform or compulsory licensing (especially after seeing it come up for COVID vaccines) make industry stakeholders nervous. Strong IP is a pillar that supports biotech investment; erosion of it could deter venture funding. On regulation, unpredictable policy like abrupt FDA leadership changes (as hypothesized under a potential anti-establishment HHS head in 2025 ( www.axios.com)) could hamper near-term approvals and thus company revenues, affecting hiring plans.

• Talent Shortages vs. Surpluses: We currently hear about talent shortages, but an interesting possibility: if the funding slowdown persists for a few years, we could accumulate something of a talent surplus—meaning more scientists graduating than there are new positions, plus laid-off folks in a job search. Already, anecdotally in 2023–2024 there were more experienced biotech professionals looking for jobs than a couple of years prior due to layoffs in small companies. If not absorbed, that could temporarily raise unemployment in the sector a bit (though as noted it’s still relatively low at 3.1% ( www.cbre.com)). Longer-term, one hopes equilibrium: workforce training ideally matches growth. If training overshoots – producing too many grads relative to jobs – that could be an issue (underemployment of Ph.Ds, etc. has been a known concern historically in life sciences). But given the societal need for healthcare, the safe bet is that demand will catch up to utilize those skills, especially as baby boomer scientists retire.

• Global Shifts: If China’s biotech expansion continues unabated, by 2030 it might rival or exceed the U.S. in certain research output measures. That could mean some clinical trials and research that would have been done in the U.S. or by U.S. companies might be done in China. It could also mean tougher competition in the global market for American biotech products. However, it could also spur collaboration or co-development, which might benefit U.S. firms that partner with Chinese ones. Politically, if relations worsen and decoupling occurs in high-tech sectors, the U.S. might restrict collaboration with Chinese scientists or companies, which could have an impact (loss of some talent exchange, etc.). But such policy might be accompanied by more domestic investment to make up for it (again boosting local jobs). Europe’s trajectory is also relevant – the EU has launched initiatives to become more attractive for startup biotech (like relaxed regulations and increased funding especially in areas like mRNA after seeing BioNTech’s success). If Europe picks up speed, U.S. companies might establish more presence in Europe, potentially moving some jobs there or sharing future growth.

• Societal Acceptance and Ethical Issues: Biotech sometimes faces social and ethical debates (e.g., gene editing in embryos, cloning, etc.). If public opinion or regulations restrict certain lines of work, that could slow those subfields (for example, if CRISPR editing of human embryos were banned, it might cut off an entire potential translational research area – though that particular area is not central to jobs currently). Alternatively, strong public trust in biotech (like after seeing vaccines work) can bolster the industry’s support.

• Climate and Bioeconomy beyond health: One future growth area is applying biotech to climate and sustainability – such as engineering microbes for carbon capture, biofuels, bioplastics, etc. The Biden Administration and others talk about bio-based economy expansions (the OSTP report from 2023 covers bioindustrial manufacturing ( www.whitehouse.gov)). If those take off, it broadens biotech beyond medicine, creating manufacturing and R&D jobs in agriculture, energy, and consumer products. For example, a company producing meat alternatives via fermentation might hire bioprocess engineers. This diversification means biotech jobs won’t just hinge on pharma’s fortunes. Already, companies like Zymergen (now folded into Ginkgo Bioworks) and others attempted bioindustrial ventures. As climate urgency grows, biotech could play a role, potentially yielding another domain of employment growth – albeit the timeline for significant impact might be late 2020s or 2030s.

In making strategic decisions, industry and policymakers should consider the following implications:

• Invest in People: Solving the talent shortage requires long-term commitment to STEM education at all levels. The payoff is an employment base ready to respond when innovation calls for scaling up. Both public programs and private sector initiatives (like corporate partnerships with universities, internships, mentoring) need to be sustained.

• Maintain Supportive Ecosystem: Policies that have historically made the U.S. a biotech leader – strong IP rights, robust public research funding, favorable tax treatment for R&D, and open immigration – should be upheld or enhanced. Any erosion in these pillars could hamper the industry’s growth and thus job creation. Conversely, enhancements (like increasing the R&D tax credit, or creating a special visa for biotech experts) could accelerate innovation and employment.

• Encourage Regional Growth: There is great benefit in nurturing biotech clusters in more regions. Not every city will be Boston, but many can find a niche (e.g., St. Louis in ag-biotech, Houston in healthcare biotech, etc.). This not only creates jobs locally but also creates a redundancy that buffers the national industry from localized downturns. Federal grants and state initiatives targeting emerging clusters (like Oklahoma’s budding biomanufacturing or Pittsburgh’s synbio scene) can pay off with new hubs forming.

• Focus on Resilience: The pandemic taught resilience lessons. Keeping critical production and expertise domestic is now seen as crucial. Efforts along those lines will likely continue (and should, to avoid disruptions). For the workforce, resilience means cross-training and multi-skilling employees so they can pivot in crises (like many did, switching from their usual research to COVID projects in 2020).

• Global Engagement: Staying engaged internationally and leading in setting global biotech standards (safety, ethics, trade) can benefit U.S. companies and thereby jobs. If U.S. biotech standards become the norm, U.S. companies might more easily expand abroad. Also training and attracting top global talent remains vital – policies like staple a green card to STEM PhD diplomas (a suggestion often made) could ensure the best foreign students educated in the U.S. remain here to contribute to the economy.

In conclusion, the future of the U.S. biotech job market appears broadly positive, with the potential for tens of thousands of new jobs in the coming decade, albeit growth may be uneven year-to-year. The sector is cyclical, but its underlying drivers – human health needs, scientific advancement, and now bio-based solutions for environmental issues – are profound and long-term. If the current challenges are navigated wisely, the U.S. can sustain its leadership and the biotech workforce will expand, becoming even more central to the innovation economy and maintaining the sector’s role as a source of high-quality jobs across the nation.

---

Conclusion

The U.S. biotechnology job market in October 2025 presents a picture of a dynamic industry that has reached a moment of recalibration after an extraordinary period of growth. We have seen that the biotech sector is a major employer – with approximately 2.3 million Americans directly employed ( www.prnewswire.com) – and a key contributor to economic output and national innovation capacity. Over the past few years, the biotech workforce experienced both heady expansion and necessary contraction, reflecting the sector’s sensitivity to scientific breakthroughs, investment climates, and external events like the COVID-19 pandemic.

In this comprehensive analysis, we documented how:

• Historical investments in science and talent enabled the U.S. biotech industry to flourish, creating robust hubs in regions like Massachusetts and California, and increasingly in newer centers like North Carolina and Texas. The long-term trend has been strongly upward – bioscience jobs grew roughly 79% over two decades ( www.bio-rad.com), outpacing most industries.

• The early 2020s delivered a biotech boom driven by record funding and urgent public health needs, pushing employment to record highs and straining the capacity of the talent pipeline. This was followed by a market correction in 2022–2024 as capital became scarce and companies refocused, resulting in slower job growth and isolated layoffs (even in leading hubs). Despite that, the sector’s employment dipped only slightly (~0.8%) during the correction ( www.cbre.com), highlighting resilience.

• Multiple perspectives were explored: We saw through case studies how Massachusetts remains a powerhouse but faces headwinds from funding and policy uncertainty ( www.axios.com), how North Carolina’s strategic focus on biomanufacturing yielded impressive job gains and a template for other regions ( www.ncbiotech.org), and how a company like Moderna exemplified the volatility – surging in size during the vaccine rush, then trimming workforce as demand stabilized ( www.reuters.com). These narratives underscore that while each segment of biotech has unique cycles, all are bound by common threads of innovation, adaptation, and interdependence.

• Key drivers – including the flow of venture capital, government policy decisions, the advent of new technologies like AI, and global competitive forces – were identified as crucial influences on biotech employment. The report showed how, for example, a favorable policy environment (robust NIH funding, efficient FDA processes) generally correlates with industry growth and hiring ( www.reuters.com) ( www.prnewswire.com), whereas uncertainty or cuts can dampen sector momentum. Likewise, technological leaps (such as in gene editing or data analytics) create new job opportunities and can alter the skills in demand.

• The current workforce was characterized as highly educated, well-compensated, but facing challenges of skills mismatch and diversity gaps. Initiatives are underway to broaden participation and training, from the White House’s biotech workforce plan ( www.whitehouse.gov) to industry-led DEI commitments, with the understanding that inclusion and education are not just social goods but economic imperatives to fill the thousands of open positions and sustain innovation ( www.bio-rad.com).

As we look to the future, the evidence compiled suggests cautious optimism. Fundamental demand drivers for biotech remain robust: an aging population, unmet medical needs (from Alzheimer’s to rare genetic diseases to cancer), and new threats like emerging pathogens ensure that the quest for biomedical innovations will continue. The U.S. biotech sector is well positioned to pursue these opportunities, with unmatched research institutions and an entrepreneurial ecosystem that has historically been second to none. If anything, the competitive spur from other countries investing in biotech (particularly China) may accelerate U.S. efforts to maintain leadership, potentially translating into invigorated funding and strategic focus, which would be favorable for job creation ( www.axios.com).

That said, we must acknowledge and manage the risks and uncertainties. The industry’s cyclicality means we should be prepared for periods of overheating and cooling. Strategic workforce planning – by companies calibrating hiring to sustainable levels, and by educators aligning curricula with industry needs – can mitigate the severity of cycles. Policy stability is another critical factor: sudden shifts in drug pricing policy or research funding could have unintended consequences on employment and must be approached thoughtfully, working with industry stakeholders to achieve public goals without stifling innovation.

The intersection of biotech with other sectors (information technology, manufacturing, agriculture) is likely to deepen, potentially transforming what we define as a “biotech job.” The emergence of hybrid fields (like computational biology, bioinformatics, bioengineering for sustainable materials) means tomorrow’s biotech workforce could be even more interdisciplinary. That opens new avenues for collaboration and requires versatile training programs, but it also suggests biotech’s impact on employment will spread into adjacent domains (for instance, a software engineer in a biotech firm working on AI for drug design – is that counted as a tech job or a biotech job? Increasingly, these distinctions blur).

For communities and workers, the continued growth of biotech offers both opportunity and responsibility. These are, on average, high-quality jobs that can anchor local economies – as seen in San Diego with wages far above the regional median ( www.axios.com) or in the boost biotech gave to manufacturing employment in Midwest and Southern states ( www.reuters.com). Ensuring equitable access to these opportunities is crucial: efforts to diversify the talent pipeline and to expand biotech hubs into new areas are steps in the right direction. If successful, we could see a future where the benefits of biotech’s growth – in terms of jobs and improved health outcomes – are widely shared across different regions and demographics of the country.

In closing, the USA biotech job market in 2025 stands at a crossroads. It has proven its resilience through a tumultuous period and retains strong long-term fundamentals, but it must navigate short-term adjustments and external pressures. The data and analyses presented in this report lead to a clear conclusion: the biotechnology sector will remain a vital and vibrant source of American jobs, innovation, and economic value for the foreseeable future, provided that strategic investments in talent, research, and supportive policies continue. Stakeholders – from industry leaders and educators to policymakers and investors – should take the lessons of the past few years to heart: fostering a stable, innovative, and inclusive biotech ecosystem is not just about discovering cures; it is also about cultivating an industry that offers rewarding careers and drives economic progress. By doing so, the United States can look forward to a biotech job market that not only recovers from its recent slowdown but enters a new era of sustainable growth and leadership on the global stage.

References:

• Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) & TEConomy Partners. The U.S. Bioscience Economy: Driving Economic Growth and Opportunity in States and Regions. Dec 2024. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-report-finds-bioscience-sector-generates-over-3-trillion-for-us-economy-302320044.html

• Axios Boston. “Mass. biotech industry shrinks amid headwinds, Trump cuts.” Aug 26, 2025. https://www.axios.com/local/boston/2025/08/26/mass-biotech-industry-shrinks

• Axios Boston. “Massachusetts' biotech job boom.” Sep 6, 2023. https://www.axios.com/local/boston/2023/09/06/massachusetts-biotech-job-boom

• Reuters. “Trump health policy uncertainty sends biotech sector into deeper slump.” Apr 14, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/trump-health-policy-uncertainty-sends-biotech-sector-into-deeper-slump-2025-04-14/

• Reuters. “Amgen to expand Ohio biotech manufacturing plant.” Apr 25, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/amgen-expand-ohio-biotech-manufacturing-plant-2025-04-25/

• Axios Boston. “Boston's life sciences industry looks to rebound in 2025.” Jan 9, 2025. https://www.axios.com/local/boston/2025/01/09/massachusetts-biotech-pharma-outlook

• Axios San Diego. “San Diego's life sciences industry dipped in 2023.” Jun 4, 2024. https://www.axios.com/local/san-diego/2024/06/04/life-sciences-industry-dip-overall-growth-biotech-convention

• Axios San Francisco. “Silicon Valley's biotech sector is still going strong.” Aug 3, 2023. https://www.axios.com/local/san-francisco/2023/08/03/silicon-valley-biotech-growth-economy

• Axios. “Biotech venture capitalist says bad industry outlook will continue.” Oct 12, 2023. https://www.axios.com/2023/10/12/flagship-pioneering-moderna-bfd

• CBRE Research. U.S. Life Sciences Talent Trends 2025. June 16, 2025. https://www.cbre.com/insights/reports/us-life-sciences-talent-trends-2025

• North Carolina Biotechnology Center. “TEConomy report: NC life sciences growth outpaces nation, passes 100,000 job milestone.” Jan 2024. https://www.ncbiotech.org/news/teconomy-report-nc-life-sciences-growth-outpaces-nation-passes-100000-job-milestone

• Bio-Rad Laboratories. “Labor Shortages Spurred by Biotech Growth – Why a Biotech Labor Shortage Persists and What the Industry Can Do About It.” 2022. https://www.bio-rad.com/en-us/applications-technologies/labor-shortages-spurred-biotech-growth

• The White House OSTP. “FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Action Plan to Bolster, Expand, and Diversify America’s Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Workforce.” Jun 27, 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2023/06/27/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-action-plan-to-bolster-expand-and-diversify-americas-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-workforce/

• Axios. “Life science firms move ahead on AI, with concerns.” Nov 14, 2024. https://www.axios.com/2024/11/14/life-science-ai-concerns

• Reuters. “Moderna plans to lay off 10% of workforce to cut costs.” Jul 31, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/moderna-plans-lay-off-10-workforce-cut-costs-2025-07-31/

• Axios. “China's biotech boom leaves U.S. playing catch-up.” May 29, 2025. https://www.axios.com/2025/05/29/china-biotech-boom-us-drug-trials

• Axios. “China is beating U.S. in biotech advances, report warns.” Apr 8, 2025. https://www.axios.com/2025/04/08/china-biotech-advances-report

• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook – Biochemists and Biophysicists; Medical Scientists; Biological Technicians (Job outlook projections and employment data). https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/biochemists-and-biophysicists.htm, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/medical-scientists.htm, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/biological-technicians.htm

(All source URLs were accessed and verified as of the writing of this report.)