by Nate W. » Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:27 pm
Does location matter? Yes, very much so compared to many other professionals like law, engineering, sales, accounting, or real estate. These opportunities are quite ubiquitous throughout the country. A prominent biotech analyst told me trying to do biotech in Texas is like being an oil executive in Manhattan; you are just out of the loop. Plus, I have talked with numerous technology transfer offices at Texas medical schools that tell me VCs just don't want to invest in middle America, regardless of how promising the technology.
This is a significant and serious consideration because if you have made roots and buy a house in a non-biotech hub then the company fails, you will face an uphill battle of finding a new job due to a dearth of real networking opportunities. There might be significant financial implications for the employees. For example, in Dallas, there have been several spinoffs companies from UT Southwestern. They include Joyant, Cumbre, Solnan, Peloton, and Reata. Both Joyant and Cumbre failed due to a lack of funding or failed clinical trials in the last eight years. The remaining have struggled due to funding issues (i.e. few jobs). In 2011, Reata had a promising small molecule for kidney failure and raised 800 million dollars from Abbott. Many new scientists joined the company and then the phase III trial results hit; higher than expected number of deaths. Abbott pulled the money and many scientists were out of work. Couple this with Novartis buying Alcon and cuts in NIH funding from UT Southwestern. Many of the biomedical scientists in DFW have been out of work for the last 1-2 years because there are limited number of companies here and a lack of real networking opportunities. The BioDFW networking group of associated companies disbanded over contentious debates over jobs and funding; everyone wanted a job but nobody had any money. This has been a perfect storm for me (and others) and makes me regret moving from RTP. The reason they can't find work is due to mortgages, a lack of biotech companies, and an inability to network effectively with managers in hub cities.
I don't believe scientists here would have much trouble finding work if they were physically located in Boston, San Diego, or the Bay Area. Connecting with people requires that you actually meet people and share information; this leads to jobs. As Dave J said, you have to be a masterful net-worker if you are in a non-hub location trying to relocate to a hub. If it was suggested that one should just pick-up and go to a hub w/o a job, this is probably a foolish thing to do and many don't have the financial resources to do so. I'll keep trying. So what do you do?
Austin and Seattle are emerging cities where solid IT money is being funneled into biotechnology. Plus, Boston seems to be doing great these days. There doesn't appear to be a lack of drug development and entrepreneurial experience (or VC money) in these cities. Working at a non-hub biotech even with solid financial backing and/or revenues is a risky endeavor for an employee. A large % of biotechs fail in the first five years; better to be in a hub then or a large Pharma or reagent company with revenues.
PS: Heard Singapore has some biotechs.