U.S. bioscience jobs rose 7%; business count topped 156,000

By Tom Whitfield

U.S. bioscience employment reached 2.31 million in 2025, up 7% from 2021, while the sector’s business count rose 22% to more than 156,000, according to a joint report from the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) and the Council of State Bioscience Associations (CSBA).

Employment increased in 41 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The report named Texas, Florida, Massachusetts, Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and New Jersey as the absolute job-growth leaders.

Where did job growth concentrate?

• Massachusetts: Employment rose 10% from 2021 to 2025, reaching 145,864 industry jobs across 5,934 business establishments in 2025.
• California, the nation’s largest bioscience employer: Employment fell 1.5%, with 334,448 jobs across 15,719 businesses in 2025.

California retained the larger 2025 job base, but Massachusetts posted the faster four-year expansion. For labs choosing expansion sites and service providers sizing recruiting budgets, the figures make state hiring a portfolio variable; the report offers no vacancy, turnover or hiring-cost data.

What did research laboratories drive?

Research, testing and medical laboratories formed the largest subsector in Massachusetts, California and nationally. It employed more than 779,000 people nationwide in 2025, about one-third of U.S. bioscience employment. From 2021 to 2025, laboratory jobs grew 8.1% and establishments grew 37%.

• Massachusetts: Laboratory employment rose 14.6%, ahead of the national 8.1% increase; pharmaceutical employment rose 9.7%, ahead of the U.S. 5.4% change.
• California: Laboratory employment rose 2.5%, even as total bioscience employment fell 1.5%.

California’s split makes the aggregate less useful for planning. A lab-focused team could face a different hiring market from a company recruiting across the state’s wider mix, but the release gives no California laboratory job count or occupational breakdown with which to size that difference.

The national pairing of 8.1% job growth with 37% establishment growth raises a capacity question for R&D managers: are establishments expanding, becoming smaller, or adding nonlabor operations? The release doesn’t define an establishment, so it cannot resolve that distinction.

How do wages compare?

Massachusetts bioscience wages averaged $219,393 in 2025, 115% above the state’s $101,877 private-sector average. California bioscience wages averaged $185,005, 90% above its $97,184 private-sector average.

California also had a bioscience employment concentration 25% above the national average, despite losing 1.5% of its jobs from 2021 to 2025. The concentration measure may matter for site selection, but the release provides no formula or state comparison behind it.

Compensation planners should treat both wage figures as market averages, not salary bands. The release gives no occupational mix, regional spread or inflation adjustment, so it cannot anchor offers for a specific scientist, technician or lab role.

How should managers read the methodology?

The BIO-CSBA report presents employment and establishment counts, percentage changes and wage averages, but the supplied release gives no sample size, data-collection method, definition of direct employment or independent validator. For a dataset covering 2.31 million jobs and more than 156,000 businesses, those omissions limit generalization.

The report also offers no R&D spending, revenue, output, productivity, vacancy or turnover measure. It supports conclusions about reported job and establishment growth, not research output or returns on a lab build-out.

The named authors also have a policy stake in the result: BIO advocates for a stronger domestic biotech ecosystem, while CSBA represents state bioscience associations. The release identifies no separate funding or outside review, so managers should pair its aggregate figures with company recruiting and compensation data before shifting budgets.

What policy change does BIO want?

The numbers support two operational readings: the national 7% employment gain widened the U.S. job base, while the 1.5% California decline shows that aggregate growth can mask local contraction. BIO uses that contrast to press for policy support, although the release names no specific federal or state measure or funding amount.

BIO President and CEO John Crowley said in a press release:

“This report makes clear that we cannot take that strength for granted. Now is the time to invest in America’s biotech ecosystem, advance policies that foster innovation and lay the groundwork for America’s long-term leadership for years to come.

“The public policies enacted today at the national and state level will directly impact whether American biotech continues to thrive here at home and where the next generation of breakthroughs will be developed.”

Crowley’s appeal turns the 2021-2025 expansion into a policy case, not a forecast. The next test for R&D leaders is whether hiring, wages and laboratory capacity remain favorable after 2025, using the report’s 41-state pattern, 8.1% national laboratory job gain and 37% establishment growth as the baseline.