Featured Locations

Choose a Location Defiance, OH Nebraska Public Power District, NE Newport News, VA Strongsville, OH

Jump to Location

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Mass. Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hamp. New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Wash., D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming ************** International Puerto Rico Canada U.K. Mexico Germany Hong Kong Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Singapore Spain

Home > Articles By Issue > July 2006

The 2006 Business Facilities Rankings Report

Biotechnology

We prepared this 2006 ranking of states showing the greatest overall strength and growth in biotechnology using nearly the same method as last year’s biotechnology ranking. The data come from the latest Battelle Technology Partnership Practice/SSTI report, prepared for the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). (The report is called “Growing the Nation’s Bioscience Sector: State Bioscience Initiatives 2006” and can be found online at www.bio.org.)

We measured eight factors, each of which counts equally toward a state’s final score.

Category 1: Number of bioscience establishments, 2004;

Category 2: Average percentage change in number of bioscience establishments among the four major biotech subsectors, 2001-2004;

Category 3: Whether or not there are state-supported bioscience R&D programs available;

Category 4: Number of biotechnology research parks;

Category 5: Number of biotechnology incubators;

Category 6: Whether or not bioscience facilities financing is available from the state;

Category 7: University life sciences R&D expenditures, FY 2003

Category 8: Bioscience occupations in the workforce, 2004 (i.e., how many people in the state work in bioscience jobs).

Changes from last year, made based on available data and a rethinking of the ranking process, include equally weighting all input factors rather than counting some as more important than others, and replacing the measurement of the number of years since a statewide biotechnology strategy was adopted with Category 3 above. The other categories remain the same, except that the data has been updated to the most current available.