IBJNews

Life sciences hold up in recession

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s life sciences companies held up better than their peers around the country—and far better than the rest of Indiana's private sector—during the early phases of the economic downturn.

That trend came through in a report released last week by the Biotechnology Industry Organization at its annual convention in Boston.

The report showed that—from 2007, the peak of the boom times, to 2010—Indiana’s life sciences companies shed about 420 jobs overall, or about 0.7 percent. The job loss rate was twice as high among life sciences firms nationally—and more than 10 times higher among all of Indiana’s private employers.

Meanwhile, during the same three-year period, wages for Indiana’s life sciences jobs rose 3.9 percent, to an annual average of $85,100. Wages at life sciences firms nationally rose just 0.6 percent during that period, to $82,700.

Wages among all of Indiana’s private-sector businesses fell a sharp 7.9 percent from 2007 to 2010, to an annual average of $49,500.

Those data, the most recent available, were produced by Ohio-based research firm Battelle, using job and wage figures for 27 life sciences-related industry subgroups, which were reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“This again shows that the investments made over a decade ago are paying off,” said Kristin Jones, CEO of the Indiana Health Industry Forum, which is the Indiana affiliate of the Boston-based Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Interestingly, Indiana struggled most in the pharmaceutical sector during the 2007 to 2010 period. With Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co. cutting more than 1,000 jobs here in 2010, employment in that sector tumbled 12.2 percent, to 17,141 workers.

The jobs that remain, however, tend to pay more than before. While pharmaceutical jobs experienced almost no increase in wages from 2001 to 2007, they surged 20 percent from 2007 to 2010, when they averaged $127,600 per worker.

Battelle’s analysis marked out states that have a specialization in each of five life sciences sectors, which include pharmaceuticals, agricultural chemicals, medical devices, research and biosciences distribution. A state was determined to have a specialization if its jobs per capita in one of those sectors was more than 20 percent higher than the national average.

No state had a specialization in all five sectors. Only Indiana, New Jersey and Puerto Rico had specializations in four out of five of the sectors. The only sector  in which Indiana lagged was research, where it has 20 percent fewer jobs per capita than the national average.

“Our industry here is both diverse and deep, and we’re now fully positioned to do even more,” David Johnson, CEO of the Indianapolis-based life sciences development group BioCrossroads, said in a prepared statement. “In fact, and especially at this time of challenge and change, it is critical that we continue to build from strength and pursue opportunities to encourage growth, innovation and support.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. We gotta stop this Senior crime. Perhaps long jail terms for these old boozers is in order. There are times these days (more rather than less) when this state makes me sick.

  2. One option is to redistribute the payroll tax already collected by the State. A greater share could be allocated to the county of the workplace location as opposed to the county of residency. Not a new tax, just re-allocate what is currently collected.

  3. Have to agree with Mal Burgess. The biggest problem is massive family breakdown in these neighborhoods. While there are a lot of similiarities, there is a MASSIVE difference between 46218 and 46219. 46219 is diluted by some stable areas, and that's probably where the officers live. Incentivizing is fine, but don't criticize officers for choosing not to live in these neighbor hoods. They have to have a break from what is arguably one of the highest stress job in the land. And you'll have to give me hard evidence that putting officers there is going to make a significant difference. Solid family units, responsible fathers, siblings with the same fathers, engaged parents, commitment to education, respect for the rule of law and the importance of work/a job. If the families and the schools (and society) will support these, THEN we can make a difference.

  4. @Agreed, when you dine in Marion County, the taxes paid on that meal go to state coffers (in the form of the normal sales taxes) and to the sports/entertainment venues operated by the CIB. The sales taxes on your clothing and supplies just go to the state. The ONLY way those purchases help out Indianapolis is through the payroll taxes paid by the (generally low-wage) hourly workers serving you.

  5. The government leaders of Carmel wouldn't last a week trying to manage Indianapolis. There's a major difference between running a suburb with virtually no one below the poverty level and running a city in which 21+% are below the poverty level. (http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/data/interactive/#view=StateAndCounty&utilBtn=&yLB=0&stLB=15&cLB=49&dLB=0&gLB=0&usSts_cbSelected=false&usTot_cbSelected=true&stateTot_cbSelected=true&pLB=0?ltiYearSelected=false?ltiYearAlertFlag=false?StateFlag=false?validSDYearsFlag=false)

ADVERTISEMENT