Growth trends in Utah's life sciences industry

Levi Pace, Ph.D. Senior Research Economist Andrea Thomas Brandley Senior Education Analyst Economic Impacts of Utah’s Life Sciences and Health Care Innovation Industry Utah’s life sciences and health care innovation industry creates substantial economic impacts across the state. November 2023 411 East South Temple Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 801-585-5618 gardner.utah.edu I Acknowledgments The authors would like to recognize individuals whose data support and research input made this study possible. Since the planning stages, leaders in Utah’s life sciences industry at BioUtah and BioHive provided advice and reviewed content. The Gardner Institute also welcomed productive collaboration with the Utah Department of Workforce Services. Its staff filled a unique, multi-part request that informed key findings. At the University of Utah and Utah State University, staff responded to detailed data requests for the Life Sciences in Higher Education section of the report. The responsiveness of the following individuals, and other leaders and colleagues in their organizations, was generous and invaluable: Ken Aoki, Senior Director of Business Operations, PIVOT Center, University of Utah Kelvyn Cullimore, President and CEO, BioUtah Aimee Edwards, Executive Director, BioHive Christian Iverson, Executive Director, Technology Transfer Services, Utah State University Eric Johnson, Director of Business and Data Analytics, PIVOT Center, University of Utah Amalia Larson, Office Coordinator, Technology Transfer Services, Utah State University Gary Reid, Bureau of Labor Statistics Program Manager for the State of Utah, Utah Department of Workforce Services The authors also extend appreciation to their Gardner Institute colleagues Nate Lloyd, Dr. Praopan Pratoomchat, and Laura Summers for their significant guidance and research contributions at various stages of the project. BioHive and the Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity funded components of this research. Economic Impacts of Utah’s Life Sciences and Health Care Innovation Industry Analysis in Brief Utah’s life sciences and health care innovation (life sciences) industry creates substantial economic impacts across the state through high-paying jobs at companies in research, testing, and medical laboratories; medical devices and diagnostics; biosciences-related distribution; and therapeutics and pharmaceuticals. Life sciences companies provide technology, products, and services to improve individual and public health outcomes. The industry generates significant employment, earnings, and GDP impacts statewide in addition to offering high-wage jobs and strong job growth, supporting over $500 million in net positive fiscal impacts to state and local governments, and employing a diverse workforce. Additionally, higher education in Utah advances the life sciences industry through student learning, research funding, innovation, and commercialization. • Life Sciences Industry Economic Impacts in Utah, 2022 (Jobs; Billions of Dollars) Employment Earnings Employment • • Workforce Demographics – In Utah, workers in the life sciences industry are more racially and ethnically diverse than workers in other industries, and a similar share of women work in life sciences compared to other industries. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 127,424 $9.3 $14.6 182,383 $21.6$14.6 $13.6 $9.3 1%$8.02% Services and U.S.0% Bureau1% of Economic 2% Analysis 3% using 4% REMI 5%PI+ economic 6% 7%model 8% 9% 10% Percent of State Total Average Annual Earnings per Worker inInduced Utah’s Life Direct Indirect & Sciences Industry,$65,000 2022 $0 $0 $96,000 $65,000 $40,000 $80,000 $96,000 $60,000 Life Sciences Industry Other Industries $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $20,000 $100,000 $100,000 Life Sciences Industry Other Industries $65,000 Note: Amounts rounded to the nearest $100. Earnings estimates include both employees and $96,000 self-employed workers. Source: Services, Quarterly Employment and Wages, $0 Utah Department $20,000 of Workforce $40,000 $60,000Census of$80,000 $100,000 GDP - In 2022, life sciences companies created an estimated $8.0 billion in GDP in Utah, part of the industry's statewide total economic impact of $21.6 billion in GDP. • $8.0 $5.3 182,383 127,424 3% 4% 5%$13.6 6% 7% 8% $21.6 9% 10% Percent of State Total Employment 0% 54,959 1% 2% 3% 4% 127,424 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 182,383 Direct Induced Percent Indirect of State & Total Earnings $14.6 $5.3 $9.3 Direct Indirect Inducedand self-employed workers. Note: Employment includes full-time and part-time jobs for & employee GDP $21.6 $8.0 $13.6 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the Utah Department of Workforce Earnings – Estimated average annual earnings for life sciences workers ($96,000) are nearly 50% higher than earnings for workers in other industries ($65,000). Utah’s life sciences industry supported $14.6 billion in earnings in 2022 from direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts. Job Growth - From 2012 to 2022, the number of jobs in Utah’s life sciences industry increased by 5.1% per year on average versus 3.5% in other states and 3.4% in other Utah industries. Utah’s 10-year average job growth in life sciences ranks third out of the 20 states with the largest life sciences employment. 54,959$5.3 GDP 0% Employment – Utah’s life sciences industry directly provided an estimated 54,959 jobs and indirectly supported an additional 127,424 jobs in other industries in 2022. • 54,959 GDP Earnings Key Findings • University Innovation and Commercialization – The National Institutes of Health provided $279.2 million in statewide funding in FY 2022, primarily for life sciences research at Utah's two R1 institutions. The University of Utah received 87.6% of the total, and Utah State University received 3.4%. Researchers at these universities were awarded 824 life sciences patents and launched 35 life sciences startups from 2018 to 2022. personal communication; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, Annual Personal Life Sciences Industry Other Industries 6.0% Income and Employment by State; and REMI PI+ economic model 5.0% 6.0% 5.1% 4.0% 5.0% 3.0% Industry Job Growth, 2012–2022 3.5% 3.4% 5.1% 4.0% 2.0% 3.0% (Compound Annual Growth 3.5% 3.4%Rate for Employment) 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 0.0% 6.0% 1.0% 1.5% Utah Other States 5.0% 0.0% 5.1%Life Sciences Industry Other Industries 4.0% Utah Other States 3.0% Life Sciences3.4% Industry Other3.5% Industries 2.0% 1.0% 1.5% 0.0% Utah Other States Life Sciences Industry Other Industries Note: Averages include all employees (no self-employed workers) based on an industry definition that aligns with historical data availability across states. Results for other states include 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. For data and definition details, see Table 5.3 in Section 5 under Workforce and Growth Trends by State. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages 1 gardner.utah.edu I November 2023 Table of Contents Section 1. Life Sciences Industry Profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Industry Definition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Labor Force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Companies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 County and City Presence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 In-State and Out-of-State Sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Workforce Demographics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Life Sciences Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 STEM Occupations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 1.10: U.S. Share of Life Sciences and Other Workers by Race/Ethnicity in Utah, 2017–2021. . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 1.11: Utah Share of STEM and Other Workers by Sex in Utah, 2017–2021. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 1.12: U.S. Share of STEM and Other Workers by Sex in Utah, 2017–2021. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 1.13: Utah Share of STEM and Other Workers by Race/Ethnicity in Utah, 2017–2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 1.14: U.S. Share of STEM and Other Workers by Race/Ethnicity in Utah, 2017–2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2.1: Life Sciences Industry Economic Impacts in Utah, 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2.2: Life Sciences Industry Direct, Indirect, and Induced Share of Total Employment and Earnings by Industry, 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.1: Industry Job Growth, 2012–2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.2: Utah Job Growth in Life Sciences and Other Industries, 2013–2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.3: Life Sciences Job Growth, Utah and Other States, 2013–2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.4: Life Sciences Job Growth by State, 2012 to 2022. . Figure 3.5: Life Sciences Share of Workforce, 2013–2022. . . . Figure 3.6: Life Sciences Share of Workforce in Leading States, 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4.1: Higher Education STEM Degrees in Utah by Award Level, 2000–2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4.2: STEM Share of Higher Education Degrees Awarded, 2000–2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4.3: Higher Education STEM Degrees Awarded by College and University, 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4.4: Utah Awards from the National Institutes of Health, FY 2002–2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4.5: Utah Awards from the National Institutes of Health by Recipient, FY 2018–2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4.6: Life Sciences Shares for Innovation Measures at the University of Utah and Utah State University, 2018–2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4.7: Life Sciences Innovation Categories at the University of Utah, 2018–2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4.8: Life Sciences Innovation Categories at Utah State University, 2018–2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 5.1: Economic Flow of Direct, Indirect, and Induced Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 5.2: Diagram of Fiscal Impact Calculations. . . . . . . . . . . Figure 5.3: Utah Life Sciences Job Growth Rate Under Legacy and Updated Industry Definitions, 2013–2022. . . . . Section 2. Economic and Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Economic Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Section 3. Workforce and Growth Trends by State. . . . . . . 19 Utah’s Growing Life Sciences Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 State Comparisons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Workforce Specialization in Life Sciences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Section 4. Life Sciences in Higher Education. . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Student Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Research Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 University Innovation and Commercialization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Section 5: Research Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Defining the Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Self-Employed Workers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Workforce Demographic Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Life Sciences Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 STEM Occupations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Economic and Fiscal Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Workforce and Growth Trends by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Student Learning Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figures Figure 1.1: Average Annual Earnings per Worker in Utah’s Life Sciences Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 1.2: Utah Employment in Selected Industries, 2022. . . 7 Figure 1.3: Life Sciences Share of County Employment, 2022. . 9 Figure 1.4: Life Sciences Share of County Wages, 2022. . . . . . . 9 Figure 1.5: Life Sciences Company Locations in Utah, 2022. . . 11 Figure 1.6: Utah Life Sciences Industry Components, Share of Output Sold by Destination, 2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 1.7: Utah Share of Life Sciences and Other Workers by Sex, 2017–2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 1.8: U.S. Share of Life Sciences and Other Workers by Sex, 2017–2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 1.9: Utah Share of Life Sciences and Other Workers by Race/Ethnicity in Utah, 2017–2021. . . . . . . . . . . . 13 November 2023 I gardner.utah.edu 2 13 14 14 14 14 16 16 19 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 25 25 26 27 27 27 31 32 34 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Tables Table 1.1: Life Sciences Industry Definition and Establishment Counts, 2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table 1.2: Utah Life Science Industry Employment, Earnings, and GDP, 2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Table 1.3: Utah Life Sciences Industry Employees and Proprietors, 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 1.4: Utah Life Sciences Company Size, 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 1.5: Largest Employers in Utah’s Life Sciences Industry, 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 1.6: Life Sciences Employment by County, 2022 . . . . . . 10 Table 1.7: Life Sciences Wages by County, 2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 1.8: Utah Life Sciences Companies by City, 2022. . . . . . 10 Table 1.9: Utah Life Sciences Industry Direct Output by Destination, 2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 2.1: Life Sciences Industry Direct, Indirect, and Induced Economic Impacts by Industry Sector, 2022. . . . . . 16 Table 2.2: Utah Life Sciences Industry State and Local Fiscal Impacts, 2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 2.3: Life Sciences Industry State Fiscal Impacts in Utah, 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 2.4: Life Sciences Industry Local Fiscal Impacts in Utah, 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 3.1: Life Sciences Job Growth by State, 2012–2022. . . . 21 Table 4.1: STEM Degrees Awarded by USHE Institution, 2000–2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 4.2: STEM Share of Degrees Awarded by USHE Institutions, 2000–2021. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 4.3: Utah Awards from the National Institutes of Health by Recipient, FY 2018–2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 4.4: Life Sciences Innovation at the University of Utah and Utah State University, 2018–2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 5.1: Life Sciences Industry Definition – Handpicked Companies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 5.2: Life Sciences Share of Industry Employment in Utah, 2017–2021. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table 5.3: Updated and Legacy Life Sciences Industry Definitions for State Comparisons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Table 5.4: Selected Results Comparing Legacy and Updated Definitions for the Life Sciences Industry . . . . . . . . 34 Table 5.5: STEM Degrees Awarded in the Utah System of Higher Education, 2021. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 3 gardner.utah.edu I November 2023 Section 1. Life Sciences Industry Profile establishments spread across 41 other NAICS industries. An establishment is a business location. Since many companies have more than one Utah establishment, the number of life sciences companies is less than 1,634. The life sciences industry also includes an estimated 7,895 jobs for self-employed workers not shown in Table 1.1 but fully incorporated in the industry and economic impact analyses. The life sciences industry is composed of four segments. Of Utah’s 1,634 life sciences establishments in 2022, 48.6% were in biosciences-related distribution, 28.7% in research, testing, and medical laboratories, 13.3% in medical devices and diagnostics, and 9.4% in therapeutics and pharmaceuticals. The Utah Department of Workforce Services (DWS) provided granular data on Utah life sciences aggregate wages and average monthly employment. DWS manages Utah data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), which benefits from reporting requirements that apply to almost every employer.5 The life sciences and health care innovation (life sciences) industry applies knowledge of biological systems to health care. The industry includes research, manufacturing, and distribution. Its companies provide medical devices and diagnostics, therapeutics and pharmaceuticals, and services to pharmacies, medical providers, and other customers. In recent years, life sciences advances have occurred in disease diagnostics, digital health, genomics, and nanotechnology. The life sciences industry is also referred to as the biotechnology or biosciences industry. Employment and wage results in this section represent direct economic activity from Utah life sciences companies themselves. Section 2 on economic and fiscal impacts covers indirect and induced effects generated by the industry. This section begins with an overview of the life sciences industry in Utah, measured by its employment, income, and GDP. We offer some details on where companies are located in the state and where they sell their goods and services. We then provide workforce demographics for the life sciences industry and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) occupations. Economic Terms n Employment is a measure of the average number of full-time and part-time jobs held by employees and self-employed workers. Companies report their employment to the Utah Department of Workforce Services by place of work, not by place of residence. Self-employed workers are sole proprietors or partners in companies without non-owner employees. Industry Definition In March 2023, the Gardner Institute introduced an updated definition of Utah’s life sciences and health care innovation industry.1 The updated definition reflects economic and technological change since the Gardner Institute’s industry definition in its 2018 report.2 A national literature review with input and validation from BioUtah and BioHive leadership led to the identification of component industries and named companies in life sciences segments. The resulting definition discussed below is roughly comparable to most leading life sciences industry research in other states and nationwide, while accounting for Utah-specific industry attributes. The Gardner Institute definition for Utah’s life sciences industry includes every company in 17 industries with the following six-digit codes from the 2022 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS): 325411–4, 334510, 334516–7, 339112–5, 423450, 423460, 424210, 541713–4, and 621511(see Table 1.1).3,4 Sections 1 and 2 employ an industry definition that also includes selected companies outside of the primary NAICS industries. Table 5.1 in Section 5 under Defining the Industry identifies handpicked companies with various NAICS codes and 126 corresponding Utah establishments. As of 2022, Utah’s life sciences industry included a total of 1,634 establishments. The total includes all 1,508 establishments in 17 NAICS industries, as well as 126 individually selected November 2023 I gardner.utah.edu n Wages represent the amount companies pay their employees on an hourly or salary basis. Employee benefits and self-employment income are not included in wages. n Earnings consist of employee compensation and proprietors’ income from self-employment. Employee compensation is the sum of wage and salary disbursements, and supplements to wages and salaries (employee benefits). n Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the most commonly used measure of total economic activity in a region, reflecting the market value of all goods and services produced in Utah. GDP avoids double counting intermediate sales, and captures only the “valueadded” to final products by capital and labor. GDP is equal to total output less the value of intermediate inputs purchased to produce that output. 4 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Table 1.1: Life Sciences Industry Definition and Establishment Counts, 2022 Segment and Industry1 NAICS Code1 Establishments2 Research, Testing, and Medical Laboratories Research and Development in Nanotechnology 541713 44 Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology) 541714 191 Medical Laboratories 621511 166 Selected other research, testing, and medical laboratories (various industries) multiple 67 Segment Total 468 Medical Devices and Diagnostics Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing 334510 37 15 Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing 334516 Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing 334517 9 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing 339112 57 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing 339113 52 Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing 339114 10 Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing 339115 3 Selected other medical device companies (various industries) multiple 35 Segment Total 218 Biosciences-Related Distribution Medical, Dental, and Hospital Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423450 Ophthalmic Goods Merchant Wholesalers 423460 439 25 Drugs and Druggists’ Sundries Merchant Wholesalers 424210 317 Selected other biosciences-related distributors (various industries) Multiple 13 Segment Total 794 Therapeutics and Pharmaceuticals Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing 325411 55 78 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing 325412 In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing 325413 3 Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing 325414 7 Selected other therapeutic and pharmaceutical companies (various industries) Multiple 11 Segment Total 154 Life Sciences Total3 1,634 Notes: 1. Industry titles and NAICS codes are from the 2022 North American Industry Classification System commonly used to categorize companies. 2. An establishment is a business location or unit. A company may have multiple Utah establishments. Counts do not include proprietorships with only self-employed workers or other companies without Utah employees. See Table 1.3 for segment-level self-employment estimates. 3. Total includes 1,508 establishments selected based on their NAICS industry and 126 handpicked establishments that the Gardner Institute identified with input from Utah’s life sciences sector. For a list of handpicked establishments, see Table 5.1 in Section 5 under Defining the Industry. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Firm Find and personal communication Private sector workers not represented in QCEW data are all selfemployed workers, most workers on small farms and railroads, some domestic workers and nonprofit employees, and students working at schools. Since self-employed workers (proprietors) were the largest QCEW omission affecting a complete analysis of the life sciences sector, the authors estimated their employment and income based on data from DWS and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (see Table 1.3). The number of companies could not be reliably estimated from the number of self-employed workers, since many proprietorships have multiple owners. As shown above, the life sciences industry includes four types of companies. These industry segments are research, testing, and medical laboratories; medical devices and diagnostics; biosciences-related distribution; and therapeutics and I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM pharmaceuticals. Together, in 2022, they provided 54,959 fulltime or part-time jobs, of which an estimated 7,895 jobs were for self-employed workers and the remainder were for employees of life sciences companies (see Table 1.2). Employment data from DWS do not report full- and part-time jobs as separate metrics. These workers earned an estimated $5.3 billion in employee compensation and proprietors’ income. They generated $8.0 billion in professional services, manufactured goods, and other products, based on state GDP estimates. The life sciences industry was directly responsible for 3.2% of Utah’s $253.8 billion in GDP in 2022. Research, testing, and medical laboratories were the largest industry segment in Utah’s life sciences sector in terms of 2022 employment, creating 18,643 jobs and paying $1.5 billion in 5 gardner.utah.edu I November 2023 Table 1.2: Utah Life Science Industry Employment, Earnings, and GDP, 2022 (Jobs; Millions of Dollars) Employment Industry Segment Jobs Earnings Share Amount GDP Share Amount Share Research, Testing, and Medical Laboratories 18,643 33.9% $1,545.3 29.3% $1,701.5 21.2% Medical Devices and Diagnostics 17,103 31.1% $1,655.4 31.4% $2,559.6 31.9% Biosciences-Related Distribution 10,372 18.9% $1,240.6 23.5% $2,036.8 25.4% 8,841 16.1% $832.1 15.8% $1,734.0 21.5% 54,959 100.0% $5,273.4 100.0% $8,031.9 100.0% Therapeutics and Pharmaceuticals Total Note: Employment and wages are reported by life sciences companies. Earnings and GDP are estimates based on life sciences employment and wages, as well as Utah data by NAICS industry for employee compensation-to-wage ratios, self-employment rates, proprietors’ income per worker, and value-added (GDP) per worker. NAICS is the North American Industry Classification System. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, personal communication; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, Annual Personal Income and Employment by State; and REMI PI+ economic model Table 1.3: Utah Life Sciences Industry Employees and Proprietors, 2022 (Jobs; Millions of Dollars) Employment1 Industry Segment Employee Earnings Self-Employed Employee 2 Self-Employed3 Research, Testing, and Medical Laboratories 13,752 4,891 $1,375.8 Medical Devices and Diagnostics 15,644 1,459 $1,640.2 $15.3 Biosciences-Related Distribution 9,277 1,096 $1,088.7 $151.8 Therapeutics and Pharmaceuticals $169.6 8,391 450 $776.0 $56.0 Total 47,064 7,895 $4,880.7 $392.7 Share4 85.6% 14.4% 92.6% 7.4% Notes: See Table 1.2 for employment and earnings totals for employees and self-employed workers combined 1. Employees work for a company they do not own. Self-employed workers are labelled “proprietors” in economic data. Life sciences companies reported employee job counts, and the Gardner Institute estimated proprietor employment based on employee jobs in life sciences and Utah self-employment rates by NAICS industry under the North American Industry Classification System. 2. Earnings for employees reported here includes payroll (wages and salaries) reported by companies and an estimate of employee benefits based on 2022 compensation averages by industry. 3. Self-employment earnings are estimates of proprietors’ income calculated as self-employment jobs times average proprietors’ income by NAICS industry in Utah for 2021, adjusted for inflation to 2022 dollars. 4. Share of total employment of 54,959 jobs and total earnings of $5,273.3 million in Utah’s life sciences industry. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, personal communication; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, Annual Personal Income and Employment by State; and REMI PI+ economic model and diagnostics companies manufacture instruments, equipment, and supplies for medical and dental care. Their products have many applications, from routine procedures to advanced surgeries. These companies make, for example, prescription eyewear, digital instruments, and prosthetic and implantable devices. The biosciences-related distribution industry segment generated 10,373 jobs, $1,240.6 million in earnings, and $2.0 billion in GDP. Wholesalers distribute drugs, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices and equipment to health care providers and pharmacies. This may involve specialized storage and monitoring, as well as inventory and supply automation. Companies in the therapeutics and pharmaceuticals industry segment accounted for 8,841 jobs and $1.7 billion in GDP, onesixth of the life sciences sector’s employment and over one-fifth of its GDP. This industry segment manufactures therapeutic and pharmaceutical products for internal and external use. Examples include medication in vials, solutions, tablets, and ointments; biopharmaceutical drugs derived from human, animal, and plant sources; cell and tissue cultures; and vaccines. annual earnings. Companies in this industry segment develop and commercialize medicines, delivery systems, cell and gene therapy, and other treatments. Many workers are engaged in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and other health-related science research. Other workers perform diagnostic testing and conduct clinical trials. Contract services also fall under research, testing, and medical laboratories. These services include health care information technology, consulting, benefits management, and staffing support for life sciences companies. In terms of earnings and GDP, the medical devices and diagnostics industry segment was the largest contributor within Utah’s life sciences sector. Companies in this industry segment added $1.7 billion in earnings for Utah households and generated $2.6 billion in GDP, 31.4% and 31.9%, respectively, of the state’s life sciences sector totals. These companies employed 17,103 Utahns. A national report showing medical devices and diagnostics employment by metropolitan statistical area (MSA) for the previous year, 2021, ranked Salt Lake City seventh in the nation, Utah’s highest MSA ranking for any of the four industry segments.6 Medical devices November 2023 I gardner.utah.edu 6 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Figure 1.1: Average Annual Earnings per Worker in Utah’s Life Sciences Industry, 2022 $120,000 +36.2% $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 +47.7% +32.6% $62,800 +76.9% $103,700 $83,300 $28,100 $0 $96,000 $76,100 Employee Wages Employee Compensation (Including benefits) Other Industries $65,000 $49,700 Proprietors' Income (Self-employment) Earnings Life Sciences Industry Note: Amounts rounded to the nearest $100. Percentage labels for the life sciences industry indicate the percent difference compared to other industries. Life sciences wages and compensation are for its 47,064 employees. Life Sciences industry proprietors’ income is for 7,895 self-employed workers. Earnings include both employees and self-employed workers. 4.5% Average wages are calculated from company-reported employment and aggregate wages. Compensation and proprietors’ income are estimated from wages based on Utah averages by Research, Testing, and Wholesale Trade 68,000 89.2% NAICS industry under the North American Industry Classification System. Medical Laboratories Personal Source: Department of Workforce Services, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, personal communication; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, Annual FinanceUtah & Investment 66,500 6.2% Income and Employment by State; and REMI PI+ economic model Medical Devices Life Sciences 55,000 Personal Services and Diagnostics 49,700 Banking & Lending 48,500 Labor Force Private Hospitals 45,000 Utah’s life sciences industry creates employment opportunities Federal Civilian employees and self-employed 40,600 for both company workers. In 2022, employees held 85.6% of the state’s life sciences 0 20,000 40,000 47,064 60,000 80,000 jobs and earned 92.6% of the industry’s earnings, including wages and benefits (Table 1.3).7 Self-employed workers held the remaining 7,895 jobs (14.4% of the total) and received 7.4% of earnings in the Utah life sciences industry. Research, testing, and medical laboratories had the largest share of workers at 44.5% 33.9%, and therapeutics and pharmaceuticals had the smallest Female 46.4% share at 16.1% (see Figure 1.1). 55.5% Wages – Life sciences companies reported paying $3.9 billion Male 53.6% in employee wages (excluding benefits) in Utah during 2022, an 0.0% 10.0% per 20.0% 30.0% wages 40.0%in the 50.0% 60.0% average of $83,263 job. Employee life sciences Life Sciences Industry Other Industries industry were 32.6% above the statewide average in other industries ($62,786). Compensation – Including benefits, total life sciences industry compensation was $4.9 billion, 3.7% of all employee 71.8% White, not Hispanic or Latino compensation in Utah during 2022. Benefits were estimated 78.6% 28.2% Minority Ethnicity from the ratioRace of or compensation to wages in each industry in 21.4% 15.8% Average life sciences which life sciences companies operate. Hispanic or Latino 13.5% 7.1% which was 36.2% above compensation perOther job Race was $103,704, Some 5.2% the Utah average in other 7.9%($76,114). Asianindustries 2.5% Proprietors’ income totaled 4.1% an estimated $392.7 million. Two or More Races 4.9% Proprietors’ income is not separated into wages and benefits. 1.0% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.9% Average proprietors’ income1.0% in the life sciences industry Black or African American 1.1%statewide average for other was $49,737, 76.9% above the American Indian or Alaska Native 0.6% 1.0% industries, $28,124. Many part-time, self-employed workers 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% were also employees in companies, such that self-employment Life Sciences Industry Other Industries was not their only source of income. Earnings – Finally, total life sciences industry earnings were $5.3 billion, 3.4% of all earnings in Utah in 2022. Earnings Female 19.5% I NMale F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 51.9% 60.0% 80.5% 7 80.0% 52.1% 16.0% Biosciences-Related 83.6% 10.5% include both employee compensation and proprietors’ income Distribution 5.9% in life sciences. Average earnings in the life sciences industry Therapeutics and 39.0% were $95,951, 47.7% higher41.9% than the statewide average in19.1% other Pharmaceuticals $120,000 +36.2% industries, $65,018. Total $100,000 56.9% 29.5% 13.6% Placed alongside 70 Utah industries, the life sciences industry +32.6% $80,000 had the 12th-highest direct in 2022. 0% 20% employment 40% 60% 80% Figure 100% $60,000 1.2 shows the six industries size to the life sciences $103,700 Utah closest OtherinStates Other Countries $83,300 $40,000 industry by employment level, industries with $76,100 40,000 to 70,000 $62,800 $20,000 jobs. At 54,960 jobs, life sciences was 13.4% larger than banking $0 48.7% and and lending services, 10.7% larger than personal services, Female Employee Wages Employee48.3% Compensation 17.3% smaller than finance and investment services. (Including benefits) 51.3% Other Industries Figure 1.2: Utah Employment in Selected Industries,51.7% 2022 Male 0.0%of Employee 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% Jobs) 40.0% (Number and Proprietor Life Sciences Industry Wholesale Trade 50.0% Other Industries 60.0% 68,000 Finance & Investment 66,500 Life Sciences 49,700 48,500 37.6% 45,000 38.2% Minority Race or Ethnicity Private Hospitals 62.4% 61.8% 12.8% 40,600 17.2% 12.2% Asian 0 20,000 5.9% 40,000 60,000 80,000 9.7% Black or African American 11.9% Note: Employment rounded to the nearest hundred for the life sciences industry and the 3.8% six (of 70) industriesSome withinOther 15,000Race jobs of life sciences. 5.4% The life sciences industry overlaps Hispanic or Latino Federal Civilian wholesale trade by 10,373 jobs, 15.3% of all wholesale 5.4% trade jobs in Utah. Finance Two or More Races 6.1% contracts, and other financial and investment services include “securities, commodity 0.4% investments and related activities, ” as well as “funds, trusts, other financial vehicles,” but American Indian or Alaska Native 0.8% not insurance carriers. Personal services include hair, nail, skin, laundry, dry cleaning, 0.2% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander petNative care, parking lot, garage, and other services. 0.2%Banking and lending services include 44.5% “monetary primarily “credit intermediation and related Female authorities, central bank” and 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 46.4%consumer activities.” The latter component includes commercial banking, credit unions, Life Sciences Industry Other Industries and related lending, and other depository and nondepository credit intermediation activities. Hospitals include general medical, surgical, psychiatric, substance abuse, 55.5% and Male 53.6% specialty hospitals that are privately owned (e.g., not the VA Medical Center or University of Utah Hospital). Federal civilians include non-military federal employees in Utah. 0.0%PI+ economic 10.0% model 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Source: REMI Life Sciences25.3% Industry Male 0.0% 20.0% White, not Hispanic or Latino Resea Med 55,000 Personal Services White, &not Hispanic or Latino Banking Lending Female 48.1% 31.9% Other Industries 49.6% gardner.utah.edu 50.4% 40.0% 60.0% I 74.7% 2023 November 80.0% 71.8% Bio T Fem Ma Companies Life sciences companies include small businesses and large enterprises. In 2022, 64.0% of Utah life sciences establishments had 1 to 4 jobs, well above the 57.4% average for other industries (see Table 1.4). On the other end of the spectrum, 4.7% of life sciences establishments offered at least 100 jobs, versus 2.2% of establishments in other industries. In the middle, 19.4% of life sciences establishments had 5 to 19 jobs versus 28.4% in other industries, and 12.0% of life sciences had 20 to 99 jobs, matching the average share for other industries. In 2022, Utah’s 15 largest life sciences companies by employment were in three segments: medical devices and diagnostics (nine companies); research, testing, and medical labs (four); and biosciences-related distribution (two) (see Table 1.5). ARUP Laboratories provided the most employment of any life sciences company, and at least nine others had 1,000 or more jobs. Collectively, the largest 15 companies represent 38.5% to 70.9% of Utah’s life sciences jobs (18,105 to 33,379 jobs divided by 47,064 total from DWS in Table 1.3). Table 1.4: Utah Life Sciences Company Size, 2022 Establishment Count Employment 2,000 to 14,999 1,000 to 1,999 I gardner.utah.edu 2 Other Industries Life Sciences Other Industries 26 0.1% 0.0% 6 53 0.4% 0.1% 500 to 999 12 146 0.7% 0.1% 250 to 499 20 425 1.2% 0.4% 100 to 249 36 1,670 2.2% 1.6% 50 to 99 61 3,402 3.7% 3.2% 20 to 49 135 9,182 8.3% 8.8% 10 to 19 127 12,747 7.8% 12.2% 5 to 9 190 17,062 11.6% 16.3% 1 to 4 1,045 60,136 64.0% 57.4% Total 1,634 104,849 100.0% 100.0% Note: Companies may have more than one establishment (worksite), explaining why establishment counts in Table 1.4 don't reconcile to number of rows in Table 1.5 for each employment category. Table 1.4 does not include proprietors with only self-employed workers or other companies without employees. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data that companies provided to the Utah Department of Workforce Services, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Firm Find Table 1.5: Largest Employers in Utah’s Life Sciences Industry, 2022 (Companies with More Than 500 In-State Jobs) County and City Presence Life sciences companies provide jobs throughout Utah. A county-level review of life sciences employment and wages shows their relative importance in local economies. A data query by the Utah Department of Workforce Services for this study yielded life sciences industry employment for 23 of 29 counties in Utah. These data do not include self-employed workers or proprietors’ income. In 2022, Cache County led the state in its life sciences share of county employment, 4.7%, and ranked fourth among counties for its employment level of 3,207 jobs in the industry (see Figure 1.3 and Table 1.6). In two other counties, the life sciences share exceeded the state average of 2.8%: Salt Lake County at 4.1% and Weber County at 3.2%.8 With 32,285 jobs, Salt Lake County had the highest life sciences industry employment of any county, followed by Utah County with its 5,284 jobs. The average wage per life sciences industry job was much higher than the average wage in other industries in Utah. Thus, wages reflect more fully than employment alone the effect of the life sciences industry on employees’ household finances and the broader economy when workers spend their incomes in Utah communities. Like jobs, employee wages are reported by place of work, not residence, for people who commute across county lines. Wages do not include employer-paid benefits. County wage data were available for 12 of the 23 counties with life sciences employment due to disclosure limitations for 11 counties with fewer than three life sciences establishments each.9 In 11 of the 12 counties with three or more life sciences establishments in 2022, the industry contributed a larger share of county employee wages than its share of county employment November 2023 Life Sciences Share of Total Company1 ARUP Laboratories Segment2 Research, Testing, and Medical Labs Employment3 3,920 to 5,848 Merit Medical Medical Devices and Diagnostics 2,000 to 2,999 bioMérieux4 Research, Testing, and Medical Labs 1,650 to 3,442 BD5 Medical Devices and Diagnostics 1,300 to 2,597 Fresenius6 Medical Devices and Diagnostics 1,073 to 2,148 Thermo Fisher Medical Devices and Diagnostics 1,041 to 2,101 Nu Skin Biosciences-Related Distribution 1,010 to 2,016 Edwards Lifesciences Medical Devices and Diagnostics 1,000 to 1,999 Ultradent Medical Devices and Diagnostics 1,000 to 1,999 Varex Imaging Medical Devices and Diagnostics 1,000 to 1,999 Myriad Genetics Research, Testing, and Medical Labs 760 to 1,517 1-800 Contacts Biosciences-Related Distribution 750 to 1,498 Stryker Medical Devices and Diagnostics 575 to 1,156 Sotera Health8 Research, Testing, and Medical Labs 525 to 1,057 ICU Medical Medical Devices and Diagnostics 501 to 1,003 Notes: 1. Job counts were combined for any company aliases and worksites within the life sciences industry. 2. Descriptions are for the NAICS industry in which the company had the most jobs. 3. Company-reported employment was averaged from monthly job counts for full- or parttime employee positions (no self-employment). Federal disclosure guidelines permit broad employment ranges, not exact counts. Nine additional life sciences companies may have more than 500 Utah jobs, but their ranges are inconclusive: Capstone Nutrition, Cytiva, Nutraceutical Corporation, and USANA, each with 500 to 999 jobs; Teva Pharmaceutical with 416 to 879 jobs; Reckitt with 301 to 602 jobs; GE HealthCare with 270 to 548 jobs; ICON with 260 to 518 jobs; and Biomerics with 251 to 503 jobs. 4. BioMérieux is the parent company of BioFire Diagnostics and BioFire Defense. 5. BD is the trade name of Becton, Dickinson and Company. 6. The Fresenius employment range does not include worksite locations primarily for patient care. 7. Thermo Fisher Scientific includes Invitrogen. 8. Sotera Health includes business units Nelson Labs and Sterigenics. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data companies provided for the Utah Department of Workforce Services, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Firm Find 8 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Figure 1.3 Life Sciences Share of County Employment, 2022 (Share of County Employment in All Industries) Summit Salt Lake 0.7% 4.1% Wasatch 0.1% Duchesne 0.0% Utah 1.7% Tooele 0.2% Juab 0.4% to 1.1% Sanpete 0.5% to 1.1% Millard 1.0% to 1.9% Sevier 0.1% to 0.2% Beaver 0.0% to 0.1% Iron 0.2% Washington 0.6% Rich: 0.0% Weber: 3.2% Davis: 0.9% Morgan: 0.2% Daggett: 0.0% Cache 4.7% Box Elder 0.1% Piute 0.0% Figure 1.4: Life Sciences Share of County Wages, 2022 (Millions of Dollars) Box Elder 0.1% Tooele 0.3% Uintah 0.3% to 0.7% Millard NA Grand 0.7% to 1.4% Beaver NA Wayne 0.0% Gar eld NA Summit Salt Lake 1.8% 5.2% Wasatch 0.2% Duchesne NA Utah 2.5% Juab NA Carbon 0.0% to 0.1% Emery 0.0% Rich: 0.0% Weber: 3.6% Davis: 1.4% Morgan: 1.0% Daggett: 0.0% Cache 6.9% Iron 0.2% San Juan 0.0% Washington 0.7% Kane 0.0% to 0.1% Uintah NA Carbon NA Sanpete NA Sevier NA Emery 0.0% Grand NA Wayne 0.0% Piute 0.0% Gar eld NA San Juan 0.0% Kane NA 0.0% 0.5% to 0.9% 3.0% to 4.7% 0.0% 0.5% to 0.9% 3.0% to 6.9% 0.1% to 0.4% 1.0% to 2.9% Not available 0.1% to 0.4% 1.0% to 2.9% Not available Note: Map does not include self-employment. Employment ranges describe employment in counties with fewer than three life sciences establishments and resulting disclosure limitations. Nonzero lower bounds rounded to zero for several counties’ ranges: Beaver, 0.03% to 0.14%; Carbon, 0.02% to 0.09%; Duchesne, 0.01% to 0.05%; and Kane, 0.02% to 0.10%. Garfield County’s employment range was not available, but there was one establishment. Daggett, Emery, Piute, Rich, San Juan, and Wayne counties did not have life sciences companies with employee jobs in 2022. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Utah Economic Data Viewer and personal communication; State of Utah, State Geographic Information Database NA = not available (wages not disclosed for counties with fewer than three life sciences establishments) Note: Map does not include proprietor’s income from self-employment. Six counties did not have life sciences companies with employees: Daggett, Emery, Piute, Rich, San Juan, and Wayne. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Utah Economic Data Viewer and personal communication; State of Utah, State Geographic Information Database (see Figure 1.4).10 For example, the life sciences industry paid 6.9% of all wages in Cache County, over two percentage points higher than the industry’s 4.7% job share there. Workers in Salt Lake County’s more diversified economy still earned 5.2% of their wages from life sciences companies, 1.1 percentage points above the industry’s job share in the county. Life sciences industry workers in Salt Lake County received nearly $2.9 billion in 2022 employee wages, 72.9% of the industry’s statewide total (see Table 1.7). With over $0.4 billion, Utah County had the second-most wages, 10.9% of all life sciences wages in the state. In three other counties, the life sciences industry provided more than $100 million in wages. Workers in the remaining counties together brought in 2.2% of Utah’s life sciences industry wages. The Utah Department of Workforce Services provides subcounty location details for establishments representing at least 85.1% of Utah life sciences employment in 2022, not including self-employment. Based on that coverage, life sciences companies operated in at least 94 cities and towns across urban and rural Utah (see Figure 1.5). In 2022, 22 Utah municipalities had at least 10 establishments in the life sciences industry (see Table 1.8). Eight of these municipalities were in Salt Lake County, seven were in Utah County, and three were in Davis County. Four other counties— Cache, Summit, Washington, and Weber—had one city with at least 10 life sciences establishments. Another eight municipalities had 5 to 9 establishments, and 65 municipalities had 1 to 4 establishments.11 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 9 gardner.utah.edu I November 2023 Table 1.6: Life Sciences Employment by County, 2022 County County Share of Life Sciences Share of Life Sciences Total2 Total County Employment3 Jobs1 Box Elder Table 1.8: Utah Life Sciences Companies by City, 2022 (Municipalities with at Least 10 Establishments) Municipality Life Sciences Establishments Share of Establishments in All Industries 22 0.0% 0.1% Cache 3,207 6.8% 4.7% Salt Lake City 361 2.0% Davis 1,243 2.6% 0.9% Ogden 54 1.3% 53 0.1% 0.2% Sandy 51 1.3% 6 0.0% 0.2% Draper 49 2.1% 32,285 68.7% 4.1% Provo 39 1.5% Summit 213 0.5% 0.7% Saint George 38 0.9% Tooele 45 0.1% 0.2% Park City 35 1.6% 5,284 11.2% 1.7% Orem 34 1.1% 12 0.0% 0.1% Lehi 33 1.4% 517 1.1% 0.6% South Jordan 32 1.5% 3.2% Logan 26 1.2% Layton 22 1.1% Midvale 19 1.3% Bountiful 18 1.3% West Valley City 17 1.2% Lindon 16 2.4% Murray 16 1.3% American Fork 16 1.2% West Jordan 14 0.6% Spanish Fork 14 1.1% Kaysville 11 1.6% Pleasant Grove 11 1.1% Iron Morgan Salt Lake Utah Wasatch Washington Weber 3,801 8.1% Other 338 0.7% 0.4% Total 47,026 100.0% 2.8% 4 5 Notes: 1. Self-employment jobs not included. 2. Nonzero shares of life sciences employment totals rounded to zero for three counties: Box Elder, 0.05%; Morgan, 0.01%; and Wasatch, 0.03%. 3. The second share equals life sciences employment divided by total employment from all industries in the county. 4. Other counties include Beaver, Carbon, Duchesne, Garfield, Grand, Juab, Kane, Millard, Sanpete, Sevier, and Uintah, which have fewer than three life sciences establishments each. 5. The county total of 47,026 jobs statewide here is 0.1% lower than the segment total of 47,064 jobs statewide in Table 1.3 due to data query differences involving a few employer establishments with mid-year industry reclassifications. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Utah Economic Data Viewer and personal communication Note: Shares equal the number of life sciences establishments divided by the total establishment count for all industries in the municipality. Companies may have more than one establishment (worksite). The table does not include proprietors with only selfemployed workers or other companies without employees. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data companies provided for the Utah Department of Workforce Services, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Firm Find Table 1.7: Life Sciences Wages by County, 2022 (Millions of Dollars) County Wages1 Box Elder County Share of Life Sciences Total2 Life Sciences Share of Total County Wages3 $1.7 0.0% 0.1% Cache $212.3 5.4% 6.9% Davis $108.5 2.8% 1.4% $1.8 0.0% 0.2% Iron Morgan $1.5 0.0% 1.0% $2,852.2 72.9% 5.2% Summit $33.6 0.9% 1.8% Tooele $2.8 0.1% 0.3% $426.3 10.9% 2.5% $1.1 0.0% 0.2% $26.5 0.7% 0.7% $228.5 5.8% 3.6% Salt Lake Utah Wasatch Washington Weber Other Total $17.5 0.4% 0.4% $3,914.2 100.0% 3.8% 4 Salt Lake City had the most life sciences establishments with 319 distinct company locations. Draper, Ogden, and Sandy each had between 40 and 50 establishments. In Draper, Lindon, and Salt Lake City, life sciences companies operated at least 2.0% of all establishments in any industry. Since life sciences establishments are larger on average than establishments in other industries, municipal employment shares may be several times greater than establishment shares, but municipal-level employment data are limited. In-State and Out-of-State Sales The life sciences industry in Utah produced $14.2 billion in output in 2022 (see Table 1.9). Output represents the sales value of goods and services and is, appropriately, much larger than the industry’s GDP of $8.0 billion. GDP measures value added by life sciences companies and adjusts sales by the cost of intermediate inputs to avoid double counting. Life sciences goods and services were sold in Utah and outside the state, both of which generated economic impacts in Utah. Notes: 1. Employer-paid benefits and proprietors’ income not included. 2. Nonzero shares of life sciences wage totals rounded to zero for four counties: Box Elder, 0.04%; Iron, 0.05%; Morgan, 0.04%; and Wasatch, 0.03%. 3. The second share equals life sciences wages divided by total wages from all industries in the county. 4. Other counties include Beaver, Carbon, Duchesne, Garfield, Grand, Juab, Kane, Millard, Sanpete, Sevier, and Uintah, which have fewer than three life sciences establishments each. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Utah Economic Data Viewer and personal communication November 2023 I gardner.utah.edu 10 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Figure 1.5: Life Sciences Company Locations in Utah, 2022 (Number of Establishments in Each Municipality) I -8 0 Cach e 4 1 to 4 5 to 9 R i ch B ox E l d er Cach e 10 to 24 I -1 5 25 to 49 I -8 D ag g ett Su m m i t I -80 B ox E l d er 319 0 Web er Wasatch Tooel e D u ch esn e U i n tah I -8 M org an 4 D avi s Ju ab I -1 5 Carb on San p ete 0 I -8 Su m m i t I -80 M i l l ard Gran d E m er y Sevi er B eaver Sal t Lake I -7 0 Wasatch Wayn e I -1 5 P i u te I ron G ar fiel d U tah Kan e I -1 Wash i n g ton 5 San Ju an Note: A company may have more than one establishment (worksite). The map does not include proprietors with only self-employed workers or other companies without employees. The city or town is available for 1,006 of Utah’s 1,632 life sciences establishments with employees. These 1,006 establishments provided at least 85.1% of the industry’s employee jobs. Missing from the map are four census-designated places (Dugway, Eden, Liberty, and Mountain Green), two unincorporated communities (Abraham and Beaver Dam), a metro township (Kearns), and a military base (Hill Air Force Base), each with one to four life sciences establishments. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Firm Find; State of Utah, State Geographic Information Database. Table 1.9: Utah Life Sciences Industry Direct Output by Destination, 2022 (Millions of Dollars) Industry Segment Utah Other States Other Countries Total Research, Testing, and Medical Laboratories $2,231.6 $156.2 $112.8 $2,500.5 Medical Devices and Diagnostics $1,400.3 $2,286.6 $700.3 $4,387.2 Biosciences-Related Distribution $2,775.2 $194.2 $349.5 $3,318.9 Therapeutics and Pharmaceuticals $1,666.0 $1,551.6 $759.4 $3,977.0 $8,073.0 $4,188.6 $1,921.9 $14,183.5 Total Note: Output is equivalent to total sales. Amounts in the table are estimates based on weighted averages from sales destination shares for each industry to which life sciences companies in each segment belong. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, personal communication; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, Annual Personal Income and Employment by State; and REMI PI+ economic model I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 11 gardner.utah.edu I November 2023 nsation efits) Proprietors' Income (Self-employment) Earnings ndustries Figure 1.6: Utah Life Sciences Industry Components, Share Life Sciences Industry of Output Sold by Destination, 2022 0 Research, Testing, and Medical Laboratories 5.5% 6% 60.0% 71.8% 78.6% 80.0% 0.5% 4.5% 89.2% 6.2% Medical Devices and Diagnostics 31.9% 52.1% Biosciences-Related Distribution 16.0% 83.6% 10.5% 5.9% Therapeutics and Pharmaceuticals ,000 billion. In contrast, less than one-third of goods manufactured by Utah medical devices and diagnostics companies and less than half of goods manufactured by drug and pharmaceutical companies stayed in-state, accounting for a combined $3.1 billion in sales. 41.9% Total 39.0% 56.9% 0% 20% Utah 40% Other States 19.1% 29.5% 60% 13.6% 80% 100% Other Countries Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, personal communication; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, Annual Personal Income and Employment by State; and REMI PI+ economic model Life Sciences Industry In Utah, workers in the life sciences industry are more racially and ethnically diverse than workers in other industries and a similar share of women work in life sciences when compared to other industries. Nationally, the life sciences industry employed similar shares of minority and female workers when compared to other industries. These findings represent employees and self-employed workers categorized based on the industry of the company where they work, regardless of their occupations. Both in Utah and nationally, the share of women working in the life sciences industry is similar to the share of women working in other industries. From 2017 to 2021, 44.5% of life sciences employees were female compared to 46.4% of employees in other industries (see Figure 1.7). Nationally, 48.7% of life sciences employees were female, compared to 48.3% in other industries (see Figure 1.8). The life sciences industry in Utah employs a larger share of people of color when compared to all other industries. From 2017 to 2021, 28.2% of life sciences workers identified as a minority (non-White) race or ethnicity compared to 21.4% in all other industries. Those who identified as Hispanic or Latino, some other race, or Asian were overrepresented in the life sciences industry when compared to other industries while the other racial/ethnic shares were more similar when compared to shares in other industries (see Figure 1.9). Nationally, the life sciences industry employed a similar share of minority workers (37.6%) when compared to all other industries (38.2%). While Asian workers were overrepresented in the life sciences industry, all other minority populations were underrepresented except Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander who held the same share (0.2%) in both life sciences and other industries (see Figure 1.10). 48.7% 48.3% Female We estimated the amount of Utah life sciences output sold in51.3% Malein other states, and outside the country from industry averstate, 51.7% ages in 2022. More than half (56.9%) of total output from Utah’s 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% life sciences industry was provided to in-state customers, 29.5% Life Sciences Industry Other Industries went to other states, and 13.6% was exported to other countries (see Figure 1.6). Total sales from Utah to other states or countries amounted to an estimated $6.1 billion. This out-of-state company revenue, once it entered Utah’s economy, benefited workers 62.4% White, not Hispanic or Latino 61.8% and companies in and beyond the state’s life sciences industry. 37.6% Minority Race or Ethnicity 38.2% Medical devices and diagnostics accounted for nearly half of or Latino Utah in 12.8% life sciencesHispanic sales outside 2022, $3.0 billion (see Table 17.2% 12.2% Asian 1.9). Therapeutics and pharmaceuticals accounted for over one5.9% 9.7% Black African American third of lifeorsciences sales outside the 11.9% state, $2.3 billion. Sales 3.8% Some Other Race by these two industry segments 5.4%represent direct sales from 5.4% manufacturers. Another $0.5 billion in revenue came into the Two or More Races 6.1% state from Utah wholesalers (biosciences-related distribution) American Indian or Alaska Native 0.4% 0.8% selling life sciences products to out-of-state customers. The Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.2% 0.2% remaining $0.3 billion was for research, testing, 60.0% and medical 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 80.0% laboratory services provided to customers in states Life Sciences Industry Other Industries or countries outside Utah. Utah’s life sciences industry also provides goods and services needed by Utah health care providers, pharmacies, and other in-state buyers. Nearly 25.3% 60% of output from Utah’s life sciences Female 49.6% industry was sold in-state. Were it not for these sales, an 74.7%states Male estimated $8.1 billion would leave the state as other 50.4% and countries satisfied Utah demand for life sciences products. 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% Biosciences-related distribution accounted for 34% and STEM Occupations Other Occupations research, testing, and medical laboratories accounted for 28% of total in-state life sciences sales. Utah buyers purchased over 80% of these products and services, worth a combined $5.0 November 2023 I gardner.utah.edu Workforce Demographics Workforce demographics described below shows race, ethnicity, and sex shares among workers in the life sciences industry and (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) STEM workers. STEM workers play an important role in the life sciences industry filling many advanced roles. In terms of sex, race, and ethnicity, Utah’s life sciences industry as a whole has a more diverse workforce than Utah’s STEM workforce. 12 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Life Life Sciences Sciences 00 20,000 20,000 40,000 40,000 Personal Personal Services Services 60,000 60,000 55,000 55,000 Medical Medical Devices Devices Total Total and and Diagnostics Diagnostics 80,000 80,000 49,700 49,700 Banking Banking && Lending Lending Biosciences-Related Biosciences-Related0% 0% 48,500 48,500 00 20,000 20,000 40,000 40,000 60,000 60,000 44.5% 44.5% 46.4% 46.4% 80,000 80,000 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 30.0% 30.0% 40.0% 40.0% 50.0% 50.0% Total Total 0% 0% 60.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% Life Life Sciences Sciences Industry Industry Female Female employee or self-employed jobs in the previous five years. Markers at the end of each bar indicate a 90% confidence interval based on a systematic Utah sample of 88,959 adults, 55.5% 55.5% Male Male among them 2,906 life sciences workers. 53.6% 53.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Integrated Public Use 71.8% 71.8% White, not Hispanic Hispanic or Latino Latino White, not 0.0% 10.0% or 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Microdata Series 78.6% 78.6% Life Sciences Sciences Industry Life Industry Minority Race Race or Ethnicity Ethnicity Minority or 28.2% Other28.2% Industries Other Industries 21.4% 21.4% Asian Asian White, not notTwo Hispanic or Latino Latino White, Hispanic or Two or More More Races or Races 2.5% 2.5% 71.8% 71.8% 4.1% 4.1% 78.6% 78.6% 4.9% 4.9% 28.2% 28.2% Minority Race or Ethnicity Minority Race or Ethnicity 1.0% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Islander 1.0% Native 21.4% 21.4% 0.9% 0.9% 15.8% 15.8% Hispanic or Latino Hispanic or Latino 1.0% 1.0% Black or or African African American American Black 13.5% 1.1% 13.5% 1.1% 7.1% 7.1% Some Other Race Some Other Race 0.6% 0.6% American Indian Indian or or Alaska Alaska Native Native American 5.2% 5.2% 1.0% 1.0% 7.9% 7.9% Asian Asian 0.0%2.5% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 2.5%20.0% 4.1% 4.1% Two orSciences More Races Races Two or More Life Life Sciences Industry Industry 4.9% Other Industries Industries 4.9%Other 1.0% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Islander 1.0% Native 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% Black or or African African American American Black 1.1% 1.1% 0.6% American Indian Indian or or Alaska Alaska Native Native 0.6% American 1.0% 1.0% 19.5% 19.5% Female Female 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 60.0% 80.0% 48.1%40.0% 48.1% Life Sciences Sciences Industry Industry Other Industries Industries Life Other 80.5% 80.5% Male Male 51.9% 51.9% Note: Shares include people ages 18 years and above, not living in group quarters, with employee or self-employed jobs in the previous Minority 0.0% 20.0% 40.0%five years. 60.0% 60.0% shares represent 80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 80.0% people who are Hispanic or Latino, or identify as any race other than White. Hispanic or STEM Occupations Other Occupations STEM Occupations Other Occupations Latino ethnicity includes persons of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin, regardless of their 19.5% 19.5% race. Hispanic or Latino persons are not counted in the mutually exclusive race groups. Female Female 48.1% 48.1% All race groups except two or more races are limited to people claiming only one racial identity. Markers at the end of each bar indicate a 90% confidence interval based on a 80.5% 80.5% systematic Male Male Utah sample of 88,959 adults, among them 2,906 life sciences workers. 51.9% 51.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% Other Other Occupations Occupations 20% 20% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 30.0% 30.0% Life Life Sciences Sciences Industry Industry 80% 80% 10.5% 100% 100% 10.5% 40.0% 40.0% 50.0% 50.0% Other Other Industries Industries 60.0% 60.0% 48.7% 48.7% Note: Shares include people ages 18 years and above, not living in group quarters, 48.3% with 48.3% employee or self-employed jobs in the previous five years. Markers at the end of each bar indicate a 90% confidence interval based on a systematic U.S. sample. 51.3% 51.3% Male Male Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Integrated Public Use 51.7% 51.7% Microdata Series 0.0% 10.0%or 20.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% White, not Hispanic Hispanic or Latino Latino White, not 30.0% 30.0% 40.0% 40.0% 37.6% 37.6% Other Industries Industries Other 38.2% 38.2% 62.4%60.0% 50.0%62.4% 60.0% 50.0% 61.8% 61.8% Figure 1.10:Hispanic U.S. Share of Life Sciences 12.8% and Other Workers 12.8% Hispanic or or Latino Latino 17.2% 17.2% by Race/Ethnicity in Utah, 2017–2021 12.2% 12.2% Asian Asian 5.9% 5.9% (Share of Adult Workers in Industry Category) 9.7% 9.7% Black or or African African American American Black White, White, not not Hispanic Hispanic or or Latino Latino Some Other Other Race Some Race 11.9% 11.9% 62.4% 62.4% 3.8% 3.8% 61.8% 61.8% 5.4% 5.4% 37.6% 37.6% Minority Minority Race Race or or Ethnicity Ethnicity 5.4% 5.4% Two or More More Races Two or Races 38.2% 38.2% 6.1% 6.1% 12.8% 12.8% Hispanic Hispanic or or Latino Latino 0.4% 0.4% American Indian Indian or or Alaska Alaska Native Native 0.8% American 17.2% 0.8% 17.2% 12.2% 12.2% Asian Asian 0.2% 0.2% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Islander Native 5.9% 5.9% 0.2% 0.2% 9.7% 9.7% Black Black or or African African American American0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 60.0% 80.0% 80.0% 20.0% 11.9% 11.9% 40.0% 3.8% 3.8% Some Some Other Other Race Race Life Life Sciences Sciences Industry Industry5.4% Other Industries Industries 5.4%Other 5.4% 5.4% Two Two or or More More Races Races 6.1% 6.1% 0.4% American American Indian Indian or or Alaska Alaska Native Native 0.4% 0.8% 0.8% 0.2% Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Islander 0.2% 0.2% 25.3% 0.2% 25.3% Female Female 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 49.6%40.0% 49.6% Male Male Life Life Sciences Sciences Industry Industry 60.0% 60.0% Other Other Industries Industries 80.0% 80.0% 74.7% 74.7% 50.4% Note: Shares include people ages 18 years and above,50.4% not living in group quarters, with employee or self-employed jobs in the previous five years. Minority shares represent 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% people who are Hispanic or Latino, or identify as any race other than White. Hispanic or STEM Occupations Other Occupations STEM Occupations Other Occupations Latino ethnicity includes persons of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin, regardless of their 25.3% 25.3%in the mutually exclusive race groups. All race race. Hispanic persons are not counted Female Female 49.6% groups except two or more races are limited to people49.6% claiming only one racial identity. Markers at the end of each bar indicate a 90% confidence interval based on a systematic 74.7% 74.7% U.S. sample. Male Male 50.4% 50.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% STEM STEM Occupations Occupations STEM Occupations Utah’s life sciences industry relies on STEM talent to fill many advanced roles. STEM occupations make up approximately 15.0% of life sciences employment in Utah.12 STEM employment does not fully match the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the population working in the state and appears less diverse than life sciences employment as a whole. This section describes characteristics of people in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics occupations, whether at life sciences companies or in other industries. Participation in the STEM workforce varies by sex. From 2017 to 2021, 19.5% of STEM workers in Utah were female compared I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 60% 60% 16.0% 16.0% 13.6% 13.6% 29.5% 29.5% 13.6% 48.7% 48.7% 13.6% 48.3% 48.3% 40% 40% 60% 60% 80% 80% 100% 100% 51.3% 51.3% Other Other States States Other Other Countries Countries 51.7% 51.7% Lifeor Sciences Industry Life Sciences Industry Minority Race Race or Ethnicity Minority Ethnicity Figure 1.9: Hispanic Utah Share of Life Sciences 15.8% and Other Workers 15.8% Hispanic or Latino Latino or 13.5% 13.5% by Race/Ethnicity in Utah, 2017–2021 7.1% 7.1% Some Other Other Race Race Some 5.2% 5.2% (Share of Adult Workers in Industry 7.9%Category) 7.9% STEM STEM Occupations Occupations 29.5% 29.5% 56.9% 56.9% Utah Utah Male Male Other Other Industries Industries 44.5% 44.5% Note: Shares include people ages 18 years and above, not living in group quarters, with 46.4% 46.4% Female Female 83.6% 83.6% 40% 40% 20% 20% Female Female 55.5% 55.5% 53.6% 53.6% Male Male 52.1% 52.1% Distribution Distribution Figure 1.8: U.S. Share of Life Sciences and Other Workers 5.9% Utah Utah Other Other States States Other Other5.9% Countries Countries by Sex, 2017–2021 Therapeutics Therapeutics and and 41.9% 41.9% 39.0% 39.0% 19.1% 19.1% Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals (Share of Adult Workers in Industry Category) Figure 1.7: Utah Share of Life Sciences and Other Workers Private Private Hospitals Hospitals 45,000 45,000 by Sex, 2017–2021 Federal Federal Civilian Civilian 40,600 40,600 (Share of Adult Workers in Industry Category) Female Female 31.9% 31.9% 56.9% 56.9% Other Other Occupations Occupations 48.1% of workers in all other industries (see Figure 1.11). Nationally, the share of female STEM workers was higher at 25.3% compared to 49.6% in all other industries (see Figure 1.12). Utah and other states have experienced racial and ethnic disparities in STEM occupations. From 2017 to 2021, an average of 17.5% of Utah’s STEM workers identified as a racial or ethnic minority compared to 21.8% in other industries (see Figure 1.13). Nationwide, 35.9% of STEM workers identified as a racial/ ethnic minority compared to 38.4% in other industries (see Figure 1.14). While White and Asian workers are overrepresented in STEM occupations, all other racial and ethnic groups are underrepresented both in Utah and the U.S. 13 gardner.utah.edu I November 2023 0.6% 1.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 20.0% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Life Sciences Industry 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% Other Industries Life Sciences Industry Figure 1.11: Utah Share of STEM and Other Workers by Sex in Utah, 2017–2021 (Share of Adult Workers in Occupation Category) 80.5% 51.9% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% STEM Occupations 60.0% 25.3% Female 48.1% Male 60.0% 80.0% Figure 1.12: U.S. Share of STEM and Other Workers by Sex in Utah, 2017–2021 (Share of Adult Workers in Occupation Category) 19.5% Female 40.0% Other Industries 49.6% Male 50.4% 0.0% 80.0% Other Occupations 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% STEM Occupations 74.7% 80.0% Other Occupations STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Note: Shares include people ages 18 years and above, not living in group quarters, with employee or self-employed jobs in the previous five years. Markers at the end of each bar indicate a 90% confidence interval based on a systematic Utah sample of 86,378 adults, among them 5,500 STEM workers. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of STEM occupations STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Note: Shares include people ages 18 years and above, not living in group quarters, with employee or self-employed jobs in the previous five years. Markers at the end of each bar indicate a 90% confidence interval based on a systematic U.S. sample. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of STEM occupations Figure 1.13: Utah Share of STEM and Other Workers by Race/Ethnicity in Utah, 2017–2021 (Share of Adult Workers in Occupation Category) Figure 1.14: U.S. Share of STEM and Other Workers by Race/Ethnicity in Utah, 2017–2021 (Share of Adult Workers in Occupation Category) 82.5% 78.2% White, not Hispanic or Latino 17.5% 21.8% Minority Race or Ethnicity White, not Hispanic or Latino 35.9% 38.4% Minority Race or Ethnicity 64.1% 61.6% 6.9% 2.4% 6.0% Hispanic or Latino 14.0% 4.1% Two or More Races 4.9% Some Other Race 2.0% 5.5% Black or African American 0.7% 1.1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.5% 0.9% American Indian or Alaska Native 0.4% 1.1% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% STEM Occupations Other Occupations 17.4% 5.4% 8.6% Hispanic or Latino 17.6% 6.5% Black or African American 12.2% 5.1% Two or More Races 6.2% 2.1% Some Other Race 5.6% American Indian or Alaska Native 0.3% 0.8% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% STEM Occupations Other Occupations STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Note: Shares include people ages 18 years and above, not living in group quarters, with employee or self-employed jobs in the previous five years. Minority shares represent people who are Hispanic or Latino, or identify as any race other than White. Hispanic or Latino ethnicity includes persons of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin, regardless of their race. Hispanic persons are not counted in the mutually exclusive race groups. All race groups except two or more races are limited to people claiming only one racial identity. Markers at the end of each bar indicate a 90% confidence interval based on a systematic Utah sample of 86,378 adults, among them 5,500 STEM workers. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of STEM occupations STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Note: Shares include people ages 18 years and above, not living in group quarters, with employee or self-employed jobs in the previous five years. Minority shares represent people who are Hispanic or Latino, or identify as any race other than White. Hispanic or Latino ethnicity includes persons of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin, regardless of their race. Hispanic persons are not counted in the mutually exclusive race groups. All race groups except two or more races are limited to people claiming only one racial identity. 21.4% Markers at theManufacturing end of each bar indicate a 90% confidence interval based 17.3%on a systematic U.S. sample. 15.1% Services Source: Professional U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Integrated Public Use 11.7% Microdata Series; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of STEM occupations Asian Asian 10.9% 11.2% Education and Health Life Sciences Industry 6.3% Retail Trade Construction $ Services and Supplies Direct Effects Wholesale Trade Employees Leisure and Hospitality $ Indirect Effects $ November 2023 I $ gardner.utah.edu Induced Effects 14 7.9% 2.5% Business Services Government 5.3% 4.9% Real Estate 2.5% 4.8% Other Services 2.7% 4.5% Finance and Insurance 12.7% 6.6% 3.9% 5.5% Transportation and Utilities 9.5% 8.9% 8.3% 3.6% 3.5% I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 2.3% 3.1% Section 2. Economic and Fiscal Impacts Utah’s life sciences and health care innovation (life sciences) industry affects other industries in the state. To this point, we have focused on economic activity within the life sciences industry. Now we will add economic activity it supports in other industries, informed by the counterfactual, “What would Utah’s economy look like without its life sciences industry?” We estimate its total economic impacts in 2022, which include direct, indirect, and induced effects along with associated fiscal impacts. Since we are evaluating the contributions of the entire industry, all life sciences activity can be considered an economic impact in one of two ways. First, out-of-state sales bring outside money into Utah’s economy. Second, in-state sales are a direct substitute for Utah buyers of life sciences goods and services who would otherwise purchase them from outside the state. Therefore, in-state sales prevent a loss of resources from the state’s economy. For these reasons, the life sciences industry’s economic impact is approximately equal to its economic contribution in Utah. See Section 5 under Economic and Fiscal Impacts for more information. Economic and Fiscal Impact Concepts Economic impacts refer to the economic activity in a geographic region generated by a given source—in this case, the life sciences industry. The Gardner Institute estimated four components: n Direct impacts, which involve employee compensation and other spending by companies in Utah’s life sciences industry; n Indirect impacts, which include the relevant portion of spending at companies that provide inputs to 82.5% White, not Hispanic or Latino 78.2% companies in the life sciences industry; n Induced impacts,Asian which include the household 6.9% 2.4% spendingHispanic of lifeorsciences industry employees and self6.0% Latino 14.0% employed as well as the relevant portion of 4.1% Twoworkers, or More Races 4.9% spendingSome by workers at companies that are part of the 2.0% Other Race 5.5% indirect and 0.7% Black orimpacts; African American White, Min Blac 1.1% 0.5% Hawaiian/Pacific nNative Fiscal impacts, Islander which include tax revenue and 0.9% 0.4% American Indian or Alaska Native government expenditures 1.1%associated with direct, 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% indirect, and induced0.0% impacts. Economic Impacts Economic impact results include direct economic activity described in Section 1, as well as indirect and induced activity generated from purchases by life sciences companies and workers. Spending by life sciences companies on both purchases and employee personal income sustained companies and workers throughout Utah’s economy. Indirect economic activity results from spending by the in-state companies from whom life sciences companies purchase goods and services. Induced economic activity results from the personal spending by workers at life sciences companies and at other companies that help provide goods and services to life sciences companies. See Section 5 under Economic and Fiscal Impacts for more information. In 2022, total economic impacts in Utah from life sciences companies were 182,383 jobs, $14.6 billion in earnings (employee and self-employed earnings, including wages and benefits), and $21.6 billion in GDP (see Figure 2.1). These estimates of combined direct, indirect, and induced impacts measured 7.7% of Utah employment, 9.5% of its earnings, and 8.5% of its GDP in 2022.13 For example, 9.5% percent of all earnings in Utah came either from life sciences companies or from companies in other industries that were supported by purchases by life sciences companies and workers. Direct, indirect, and induced impacts of the life sciences industry vary across industry sectors. The three industries with the largest employment economic impact from the life STEM Occupations American In Native Haw Other Occupations Economic Flow of Direct, Indirect, and Induced Economic Impacts Profe Educa Life Sciences Industry $ Services and Supplies Direct Effects Employees Leisure $ B Indirect Effects $ Induced Effects Transporta $ Financ Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute N Employment I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 17.5% 21.8% Minority Race or Ethnicity 15 Earnings GDP 2.3% 54,959 3.4% $5.3 3.2% 5.4% 127,424 6.1% gardner.utah.edu $9.3 5.3% 182,383 I November $14.62023 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% $ STEM Occupations 60.0% 80.0% Other Occupations Finance and Insurance Figure 2.1: Life Sciences Industry Economic Impacts in Utah, 2022 (Jobs; Billions of Dollars) 2.3% 54,959 Employment 5.4% 127,424 3.4% $5.3 Earnings Figure 2.2: Life Sciences Industry Direct, Indirect, and 1.4% Information Induced Share of Total Employment and Earnings by 0.9% Industry, 2022 0.4% Natural Resources 182,383 5.3% $13.6 $14.6 $21.6 $ 5.0% 4.0% Employees $ 0.0% Induced Effects sciences industry in 2022 were manufacturing, professional services, and education and health which combined to more than a third of the 182,383 direct, indirect, and induced job total (see Figure 2.2).14 The life sciences industry directly created or supported 32,354 manufacturing jobs, 21,421 professional services jobs, and 20,271 education and health jobs in Utah. Five other industries gained more than 10,000 Utah jobs each 2.3% 5.4% industry including retail in 2022 because of the life sciences Employment 182,383 54,959 127,424 trade, construction, wholesale trade, leisure & hospitality, and 3.4% 6.1% business Earningsservices. The remaining seven industries collectively $14.6 $5.3 $9.3 received 21.9% of the employment impacts (see Table 2.1). 3.2% $8.0 5.3% $13.6 Construction 5.1% Wholesale Trade 7.9% 3.5% 1.5% Other States Other Industries 2.7% 4.5% 3.6% 3.5% Transportation and Utilities 2.3% 3.1% Finance and Insurance 1.4% 0.9% Information Natural Resources 12.7% 5.3% 4.9% Government Utah Other Services $ 30% 9.5% 2.5% Sciences Industry RealLife Estate 4.8% $ 21.4% 8.9% 8.3% 3.0% 3.4% 2.5% Leisure and Hospitality 6.6% 2.0% 3.9% Business Services 1.0% 5.5% Note: Employment includes full-time and part-time jobs for employee and self-employed workers. Percentages equal economic impacts divided by total employment, earnings, and GDP in the state. Utah industries, including life sciences, are interdependent and have overlapping economic impacts. Statewide measures of direct economic activity in all industries would addIndirect to 100%. Effects Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the Utah Department of Workforce Services and Bureau of Economic Analysis using REMI PI+ economic model GDP 6.3% Retail Trade 6.0% Indirect Induced Direct&Effects 20% 17.3% Earnings 15.1% Jobs 11.7% 10.9% 11.2% Education and Health 0%and 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% Services Percent of State Total Supplies Direct 10% Professional Services 6.1% $9.3 3.2% $8.0 0.3% Manufacturing 0% Life Sciences Industry GDP 0.0% 3.6% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 3.5%Occupations STEM Other Occupations 2.3% 3.1% Transportation and Utilities 0.4% 0.3% 0% 10% 20% Earnings 30% Jobs Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the Utah Department of Workforce Services and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis using REMI PI+ economic model. $21.6 Table 2.1: Life Sciences Industry Direct, Indirect, and Induced Economic Impacts by Industry Sector, 2022 6.0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% Percent of State Total Jobs Direct Indirect & Induced 32,354 Industry Sector Manufacturing 8% 9% 10% Employment Share of Total 17.7% 5.0% 5.1% 4.0%of Sector Share 3.0% 18.9% Earnings $ Millions Share of Total Share of Sector $3,129 3.4% 3.5% 21.4% 21.4% 11.7% 2.0% 11.1% $2,209 15.1% 13.9% 14,445 7.9% 1.0% 21.3% $1,859 12.7% 1.5% 26.1% 20,271 11.1% 0.0% 7.3% $1,594 10.9% Construction 15,022 8.2% 9.4% Retail Trade 17,113 9.4% 7.0% Government 8,930 4.9% 3.2% $779 5.3% 3.6% 10,022 5.5% 6.1% $577 3.9% 6.1% Transportation and Utilities 6,361 3.5% 6.1% $529 3.6% 6.5% Other Services 8,224 4.5% 7.0% $393 2.7% 6.4% Real Estate 8,663 4.7% 6.7% $368 2.5% 6.6% Leisure and Hospitality 11,873 6.5% 5.7% $365 2.5% 6.3% Finance and Insurance 5,566 3.1% 3.7% $337 2.3% 3.6% Information 1,648 0.9% 3.4% $208 1.4% 3.6% 470 0.3% 1.2% $53 0.4% 2.5% 182,383 100.0% 7.7% $14,623 100.0% 9.5% Professional Services 21,421 Wholesale Trade Education and Health Business Services Natural Resources Total Utah Other States 8.9% $1,299 Life Sciences Industry $925 Other Industries 6.3% 9.7% 10.0% 7.7% Source: Kem C. Gardner Institute analysis of data from the Utah Department of Workforce Services and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis using REMI PI+ economic model. November 2023 I gardner.utah.edu 16 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Government expenditures help support the population of adults and children living in Utah and working in the life sciences industry or in a job in another industry indirectly supported by the life sciences industry. We estimated the share of state government operating expenses in 2022 that can be attributed to the life sciences industry at $369.0 million. Public and higher education operating expenditures, nearly half the total, combined to $178.4 million. Non-education operating expenditures amounted to $190.6 million. The estimated state capital expenditures that can be attributed to the life sciences industry total $46.2 million for 2022, with non-education capital expenditures accounting for the largest amount ($41.2 million). Subtracting total state operating expenses and state capital expenditures from total state revenues yields net state revenue from the life sciences industry of $345.8 million. We separated total state revenues and expenditures into the portions associated with direct and with indirect and induced economic impacts of the life sciences industry. Direct economic impacts accounted for $176.6 million, which was an estimated 51.1% of the additional net state government revenue from the life sciences industry in 2022. The industry’s indirect and induced effects generated just under half of state net tax revenues ($169.2 million of $345.8 million). Turning to local government, the net fiscal impact of Utah’s life sciences industry was estimated at $196.3 million in 2022 (see Table 2.4). That includes an estimated $476.9 million in tax revenues and $280.5 million in operating and capital expenditures for counties, cities/towns, and school districts. Most local tax revenues came from the property tax ($332.5 million). The local portion of sales tax collections was $144.4 million. Expenditures for counties and cities/towns, including public K–12 education, amounted to $280.5 million. As with state fiscal impacts, these local revenues and expenditures are associated with direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts of the life sciences industry. Direct economic impacts accounted for $92.3 million, which was 47.0% percent of the net local government revenue resulting from the life sciences industry during 2022. The industry’s indirect and induced effects generated 53.0% of estimated local net tax revenues ($104.0 million of $196.3 million). Measuring direct, indirect, and induced earnings is another measure of economic impacts from the life sciences industry. Manufacturing and retail services were the industries with the largest earnings impacts at $3.2 million and $2.2 million, respectively. Wholesale trade, education & health, and construction all had impacts of over $1.0 billion. These five industries accounted for nearly 70% of direct, indirect, and induced earnings. The remaining 31.0% was spread across the remaining ten industries. Fiscal Impacts The total economic impacts presented resulted in additional tax revenue and government expenditures in Utah. Life sciences companies’ operations in 2022 supported a net positive fiscal impact to state and local government of $542.1 million (see Table 2.2). This includes $1,237.9 million in tax revenues paid or indirectly generated, less $695.7 million in additional demand for state, county, city/town, and school district expenditures. See Section 5 under Economic and Fiscal Impacts for more information about the fiscal impact analysis methodology. The net fiscal impact resulting from activity in the life sciences industry alone was $268.9 million. That includes taxes paid by workers and companies in the industry. Most fiscal impacts—61.3% of revenues and 69.9% of government expenditures—came from indirect and induced effects of the life sciences industry. While the life sciences industry’s direct fiscal impact is significant, the industry supports larger tax revenue flows and requires more government expenditures through companies and workers that are part of its indirect and induced economic impacts in Utah. At the state level, most of the $761.0 million in estimated 2022 tax revenue associated with the life sciences industry’s economic impact came from sales and personal income taxes (see Table 2.3). The state portion of additional sales tax revenue was $350.8 million. Personal income taxes of $354.3 million were paid by employees and proprietors in Utah’s life sciences industry and by workers in other industries supported by life sciences company and worker spending. Corporate income taxes paid by life sciences companies and other companies they support were estimated at $55.8 million. Table 2.2: Utah Life Sciences Industry State and Local Fiscal Impacts, 2022 (Millions of Dollars) Impact Direct Tax Revenues Indirect & Induced $478.5 Total $759.4 $1,237.9 Government Expenditures $209.7 $486.0 $695.7 Net State and Local Revenue $268.9 $273.2 $542.1 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute fiscal model I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 17 gardner.utah.edu I November 2023 Table 2.3: Life Sciences Industry State Fiscal Impacts in Utah, 2022 (Millions of Dollars) Impact Direct Indirect & Induced Total State Sales Tax Revenues $136.7 $214.1 $350.8 Personal Income Tax Revenues $138.1 $216.2 $354.3 $27.0 $28.8 $55.8 Corporate Income Tax Revenues Total State Tax Revenues $301.7 $459.3 $761.0 Non-Education Expenditures $57.4 $133.2 $190.6 Public Education Expenditures $28.1 $65.2 $93.3 Higher Education Expenditures $25.7 $59.5 $85.2 $111.2 $257.8 $369.0 $12.4 $28.8 $41.2 Public Education Capital Expenditures $0.2 $0.3 $0.5 Higher Education Capital Expenditures $1.3 $3.2 $4.5 Total State Operating Expenditures Non-Education Capital Expenditures Total State Capital Expenditures Net State Revenue $13.9 $32.3 $46.2 $176.6 $169.2 $345.8 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute fiscal model Table 2.4: Life Sciences Industry Local Fiscal Impacts in Utah, 2022 (Millions of Dollars) Impact Direct Property Tax Revenues Indirect & Induced $120.6 Local Sales Tax Revenues Total Local Revenues $211.9 Total $332.5 $56.3 $88.1 $144.4 $176.8 $300.1 $476.9 Local Expenditures (public ed & non-ed) $84.5 $196.0 $280.5 Total Local Operating & Capital Expenditures $84.5 $196.0 $280.5 Net Local Revenue $92.3 $104.0 $196.3 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute fiscal model November 2023 I gardner.utah.edu 18 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 0.0% ations oyees 17.6% 6.5% 12.2% 5.1% Two or More Races 6.2% 2.1% Some Other Race 5.6% American Indian or Alaska Native 0.3% 0.8% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.2% Utah’s life sciences and health care innovation (life sciences) 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% industry generated economic growth between Other 2012Occupations and 2022. STEM Occupations Black or African American Section 3. Workforce and Growth Trends by State other industries experienced job growth ranging from -1.3% to 5.8%. The rate for other industries fell below that of the life sciences industry every year except in 2015 and 2022. Compared with other industries and states, Utah’s life sciences job growth was strong. In terms of workforce specialization, companies in the industry provided a large share of Utah’s employee workforce relative to other states with significant life sciences industries. 21.4% Manufacturing 17.3%life sciences This section utilizes data based on an updated 15.1% Professional Services industry definition for Utah and other 11.7% states. In 2022, the life sciences share of Utah’s employee workforce was 2.1% under 10.9% Education and Health 11.2% the legacy definition and 2.7% under the updated definition 6.3% Trade (see Section 5Retail under Defining the Industry). From 2012 to 2022, 9.5% average annual job growth in Utah’s8.9% life sciences industry was Construction 8.3% 4.4% under the legacy definition and 5.1% under the updated 12.7% Wholesale Trade definition. For both definitions, Utah had the third highest 107.9% year growth rate among the 20 states with the most life sciences 2.5% Leisure and Hospitality 6.6% employment in 2022. State Comparisons In recent years, the life sciences industry has grown more quickly in Utah than in most other states. In eight of 10 years from 2012 to 2022, Utah’s employee job growth exceeded the average for all other states (see Figure 3.3). Among the 20 states with the largest life sciences industries by 2022 employment, Utah ranked third for its average annual job growth of 5.1% from 2012 to 2022, when other states’ growth rates ranged from 1.3% to 5.6% (see Figure 3.4 and Table 3.1). In 2022, these 20 states provided 84.1% of U.S. life sciences employment, while the remaining 15.9% of jobs were in the 30 remaining states, territories, and the District of Columbia. Job growth is supported by strong investment in life sciences companies. Utah has a high rate of venture capital investment for a state of its size. From 2018 to 2021, Utah ranked eighth at $678 per capita, higher than the nationwide average of about $600 per capita.16 3.9% 5.5% Business Services Utah’s Growing Life Sciences Industry 5.3% Government 4.9% On average from 2012 to 2022, the number of employee jobs 2.5% Real Estate in the life sciences industry increased by 5.1% per year in Utah 4.8% versus 3.5% in other states 2.7% (see Figure 3.1). Nationwide, life Other Services 4.5% sciences companies added jobs more quickly than companies 3.6% Transportation and Utilities in other industries. Utah’s growth 3.5%advantage in life sciences was 1.7 percentage points versus2.3% other industries in the state (3.4% Finance and Insurance 3.1% annual growth) and 1.6 percentage points versus other states’ 1.4% Information (3.5% life sciences industries annual growth). 0.9% Growth in Utah’s life sciences 0.4% industry regularly exceeds that Natural Resources 0.3% of other industries in the state. From 2012 to 2022, life sciences 0% 10% 20% 30% employee job growth rates fluctuated between -0.6% and 7.2% Earnings Jobs per year (see Figure 3.2). Meanwhile, Utah companies in all Workforce Specialization in Life Sciences Utah’s workforce specializes heavily in life sciences. In 2022, life sciences companies provided 2.7% of Utah’s employee jobs, well above the 1.5% average in all other states (see Figure 3.5). From 2013 to 2016, as its life sciences share rose from 2.4% to 2.5%, Utah ranked third for workforce specialization in life sciences among the 20 largest states by 2022 life sciences employment. Utah’s share continued to increase from 2017 to 2021, the state ranking second each year and reaching 2.9% in 2021, before settling to 2.7% in 2022. From 2013 to 2022, Utah’s average life sciences employment share (2.6%) was double the national average (1.3%). As of 2022, among the 20 largest states with life sciences employment, Utah’s workforce had the third highest life sciences concentration after Massachusetts and New Jersey (see Figure 3.6). Utah’s 2.7% life sciences share of employee jobs in the state exceeded the 20-state average of 1.6%. Within the life sciences industry, as of 2021, Utah’s workforce specialization was at least 20% above the national average for three of four segments: medical devices and diagnostics; research, testing, and medical laboratories; and therapeutics and pharmaceuticals.17 In the fourth segment, biosciencesrelated distribution, Utah was above the national average by less than 20%.18 Among 119 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) with more than 250,000 employee jobs in the private 14.6 0% Figure 3.1: Industry Job Growth, 2012–2022 (Compound Annual Growth Rate for Employment) 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 5.1% 3.0% 3.4% 3.5% 2.0% 1.0% 1.5% 0.0% Utah Life Sciences Industry Other States Other Industries Note: Averages include all employees (no self-employed workers) based on an industry definition that aligns with historical data availability across states. Results for other states include 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. For data and definition details, see Table 5.3 in Section 5 under Workforce and Growth Trends by State. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 19 gardner.utah.edu I November 2023 Features of State Employment Data Life sciences industry employment data in Section 3 have features and limitations. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) compiles employer-reported job counts and shares annual totals for each state by detailed industry. State growth rates and rankings can change significantly from year to year. From 2013 to 2022 in the largest 20 states (by 2022 life sciences employment), 14 states had at least one year of negative industry job growth, 18 states had at least one year with growth at or above 6.0%, and 12 states met both criteria. Features and limitations of historical BLS employment data explain the noisy year-over data changes and can help readers interpret workforce and growth trends by state with caution and focus on longer-term growth trends. sciences NAICS industries, their 500–999 jobs are not counted in Utah’s 2022 employment for comparison with other states. If Cytiva’s employment were added to Utah’s 2022 life sciences employment — with no adjustments for other companies, states, or years for consistency — Utah’s life sciences job growth from 2021 to 2022 would be between 0.7% and 2.0%. In Sections 1 and 2, Cytiva is fully represented in em­ployment and other Utah results for 2022. n n Data Coverage: Of 983 detailed industries in the 2022 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), 17 belong in the life sciences industry definition for Section 3, which does not include companies handpicked from other NAICS industries. Also, the BLS data do not include selfemployment. n Nondisclosure and Reclassification: The BLS does not disclose state-level job counts for detailed industries with fewer than three companies or with a company that has 80% or more of total employment. Additionally, companies can switch NAICS industries at any point based on changes in their primary product or service. For example, Cytiva, a Utah life sciences company with 500 to 999 in-state jobs switched classification from a detailed industry where employment was disclosed in 2021 to one where employment was not disclosed in 2022. Even though Cytiva’s old and new industries were both among the 17 life Growth Rate Patterns: Since an annual job growth rate is the percentage change in employment since the previous year, a large life sciences job growth rate may imply high industry employment during the current year and/or low industry employment during the previous year. This cumulative dynamic arose during the COVID-19 pandemic. States returning to trend after early declines in life sciences employment were poised for large annual growth rates. Meanwhile, states like Utah with very strong life sciences job growth in 2020 and 2021 relative to other states and industries were in a challenging position to retain previous employment gains and add yet more jobs in 2022 without a rebound effect. For consistency in historical and cross-state comparisons based on BLS data, the Gardner Institute did not selectively revise Utah’s employment growth in Section 3. Companylevel data are not available for similar exploration and modifications for other states and years. Reclassifications can happen in any given state and year, offset in BLS data by companies starting or expanding operations in a state, as well as companies with industry reclassifications that add to life sciences industry employment.15 Annual Growth Rate Figure 3.2: Utah Job Growth in Life Sciences and Other Industries, 2013–2022 (Annual Percent Change in Employment) 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% -1.0% -2.0% 7.2% 6.7% 3.5% 2013 3.4% 3.2% 2014 4.0% 4.3% 2015 6.4% 3.7% 2016 3.1% 6.8% 6.4% 6.4% 3.7% 2017 2018 Life Sciences Industry 5.8% 5.1% 4.5% 3.4% 2.9% - 1.3% 2019 2020 Other Industries 3.4% - 0.6% 2021 2022 10-Year Average Note: Single-year growth rates are calculated as percentage changes since the previous year; 10-year averages are compound annual growth rates since 2012. The life sciences industry provided 23,327 jobs in 2012 and 38,283 jobs in 2022, while other industries provided 982,951 jobs in 2012 and 1,368,930 jobs in 2022. Results include all employees (no self-employed workers) based on an industry definition that aligns with historical data availability across states. For data and definition details, see Table 5.3 in Section 5 under Workforce Growth Trends by State. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages 8.0% 7.1% 7.2% (2nd) (2nd) 7.0% 2023 November te 6.0% I gardner.utah.edu 7.4% (3rd) 6.7% (3rd) 6.4% (6th) 6.4% 6.4% 20 (11th) 5.9% (2nd) (9th) 4.5% 6.8% 6.3% (4th) TM I (3rd) N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S 5.1% 4.4% (3rd) Ann Michigan 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.1% 0.0% Ohio 1.0% -1.0% Texas 0.8% -2.0%Georgia Figure 3.4: Life Job Growth 2022 2013Sciences 2014 2015 by State, 20162012 to2017 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% Utah (10-Year Average Annual Percent Change in Employment for 5.1% 4.5% 3.6% 5.6% 3.3% 1.6% 5.1% 2.4% 3.6% 2.3% 2.4% 2.0% 2.5% No 4.2% 2.1% 5.4% -0.6% 20-St Ma 3.1% 1.3% 4.2% P 10-Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average Utah 2018 Ot 20 States with the Highest Life Sciences Employment in 2022) 3.5% 5.9% 6.8% 5.5% 4.5% 3.9% 6.4% 7.1% 6.4% 6.4% 3.3% 2.3% 4.0% 2.5% 1.5% 3.4% 6.7% 7.2% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% -1.0% -2.0% 1.2% Annual Growth Rate Figure 3.3: Life Sciences Job Growth, Utah and Other States, 2013–2022 (Annual Percent Change in Employment) 3.5% 4.9% Other States Percent of Jobs in All Industries Note: Single-year growth rates are calculated as percentage changes since the previous year; 3.5% 10-year averages are compound annual growth rates since 2012. The life sciences industry in Utah provided 23,327 jobs in 2012 and 38,283 jobs in 2022, while in other states, the industry 4.0%–5.6% 3.0%–3.9% 0.0%–2.9% Not Top 20 provided 1,316,933 jobs in 2012 and 1,850,485 jobs in 2022. Results include employees (no self-employed 2.9% 3.0% workers) at life sciences companies under an industry definition that aligns 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6%Note: Growth 2.6% with historical data availability across states. Growth rates for other states include 49 states, rates represent employees (no self-employed workers) at life sciences 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. For data and definition the District companies in 17 NAICS industries (see Table 5.3 in Section 5 under Workforce Growth Trends details, see Table 5.3 in Section 5 under Workforce Growth Trends by State. by State.) NAICS is the North American Industry Classification System. 2.0% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5%Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Statistics, Statistics, Census of Employment and Wages 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% Quarterly 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.0% 0.5%3.1: Life Sciences Job Growth by State, 2012–2022 Table 0.0% Percent Change in Employment for States with the 20 Largest Life Sciences Industries by Employment) (Annual 5.1% 6.8% 5.5% 5.9% 2019 2020 2021 2022 10-Year Average 8.0% 10-Year Average Growth Industry Size by Utah Other States Annual Growth Rate (Since Previous Year) 7.0% (2012 to 2022) Employment (2022) 6.0% 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 5.0% 2021 2022 Rate Rank Rank 4.0% 6.7% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 4.5% 4.0% 6.8% 9.4% 5.6% 1 2 4.2% 5.6% 2.2% 9.3% 7.6% 4.4% 3.0% 8.6% 8.6% 5.4% 2 15 2.0% 6.3% 2.4% 11.2% 11.0% 5.1% 5.0% 1.0% 4.0% -0.6% 5.1% 3 14 6.4% 7.1% 6.4% 2018 6.4% 2017 6.7% 2016 7.2% 2015 4.5% State 2014 Annual Growth Rate 2013 4.0% Utah 1.2% 0.2% Texas 0.9% 1.6% 5.3% 3.5% 4.8% 11.3% 6.0% -2.0% -4.0% 7.7% 6.7% 18.0% 5.4% 2.7% North Carolina 1.6% 3.2% 2.3% 4.9% 6.9% 4.7% 4.5% 3.4% 0.0% 5.9% 7.1% 4.9% 4 3 -0.6% 2.5%-1.0% 4.2% 5.4% 4.5% 5 16 10-Year -2.0% 1.3% 6.6% 7.0% 2015 20164.2% 8 2013 2014 2017 2018 2019 6 2020 2021 2022 Average California 7.3% 1.6% 2.0% -0.1% 2.7% 8.8% 3.1% 3.4% 6.9% 6.4% Utah4.2% Minnesota -0.4% 3.0% 2.9% 2.9% 6.6% 8.3% 2.6% 2.4% 4.3% 3.8% 3.6% 8 11 Colorado 3.4% 0.9% 2.5% 2.2% 2.2% 6.2% 5.9% 4.0% 3.8% 5.0% 3.6% 9 18 Georgia -4.1% 1.3% -1.0% 4.5% 34.3% -12.4% 3.8% 3.9% 5.8% 7.3% 3.5% 10 19 Florida 2.5% 3.3% 3.3% 0.8% 0.9% 8.4% 2.3% 1.8% 3.0% 5.7% 6.5% 3.5% Wisconsin 0.7% 2.1% 5.6% 6.5% 3.4% 4.8% 3.1% -2.8% 2.5% 5.2%2.4%11.1% 3.3% 2.4% 11 122.5% New York 0.8% 0.7% 1.4% 1.2% 4.0% 11.4% 3.1% -1.9% 2.0% 5.3% 5.6% 3.1% 13 New Jersey 3.7% 1.6% 3.5% 1.2% 0.6% 7.0% -1.2% 1.8% 1.5% 3.4% 1.7% 2.3% 2.5% 0.8% -4.2% 7.4% 4.0% -0.4% 1.0% 7.1% 2.5% 1.2% 2.4% 14 Illinois 4.4% 1.2% 2.7% Ohio 1.8% -6.0% 3.1% -3.5% -0.6% 19.3% 2.8% 2.4% 16 12 2.7% -0.6% 0.6% 2.1% 1.5% 1.5% 5.1% 1.1% 0.5% 3.0% -0.8% 0.0% 5.4% 4.6% Indiana 5.9% 2013 0.9% 6.1% 2.3% 17 Washington 3.3% 1.6% 1.5% 1.2% 2.3% 2.4% 3.5% 3.4% 1.5% 3.9% 7.2% Arizona 4.0% 2.5% Massachusetts 3.4% 2014 Percent of Jobs in All Industries 2013 Other States 7 1.2% 1 4 2.5% 20 5 1.2% 15 6 1.2% 9 -0.7% -1.3% -2.1% 7.6% 0.8% 6.0% 1.7% 0.1% 3.7% 3.6% 2.0% 19 10 2017 17 Utah 7 Michigan 2.0% 3.0% -1.0% -0.4% -6.6% 3.6% 1.5% -0.6% 6.0% 6.0% 1.3% 20 13 20 States 1.6% 1.5% 2.6% 2.9% 3.9% 6.9% 3.9% 1.5% 5.6% 5.9% 3.6% NA NA U.S. 1.3% 1.5% 2.5% 2.4% 3.4% 7.1% 3.9% 1.7% 5.5% 5.8% 3.5% NA NA Tennessee Pennsylvania -2.3% -0.7% 1.1% 3.9% 3.5% 5.5% 4.4% 0.2% 2014 2.1% 2015 18 2016 Note: Ten-year averages are compound annual growth rates. Industry size rankings and top 20 selection are based on 2022 employment in the life sciences industry. Growth rates represent employees (no self-employed workers) at life sciences companies. U.S. row includes all states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. See Table 5.3 in Section 5 under Workforce Growth Trends by State, for more details about the data and industry definition for this section. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 21 gardner.utah.edu 2.6% I November 2023 1.3% 2018 Other S -2.0% 10-Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average Utah Other States Percent of Jobs in All Industries Figure 3.5: Life Sciences Share of Workforce, 2013–2022 (Life Sciences Companies’ Share of Total Employment) 6.4% .3% 3.0% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.9% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.7% 2.6% 2.0% 1.5% 1.2% 1.0% 7.1% 0.5% 0.0% 1.2% 6.8% 6.4% 2013 3.9% 4.5%2014 5.9% 2016 5.5% 2015 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 5.1% 2017 2018 Utah 3.5% Other States 1.3% 2019 1.4% 2020 1.4% 2021 1.5% 2022 1.3% 10-Year Average Note: The life sciences industry in Utah provided 25,018 jobs in 2013 and 38,283 jobs in 2022, while in all other states, the industry provided 1,332,083 jobs in 2013 and 1,850,485 jobs in 2022. Results include employees (no self-employed workers) at life sciences companies under an industry definition that aligns with historical data availability across states. Shares for other states 1.6% include 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. For data and definition details, see Table 5.3 in Section 5 under Workforce Growth Trends by State. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages -0.6% 7 Utah Figure 3.6: Life Sciences of Workforce 2018 2019 2020 Share2021 2022 in Leading 10-Year Average States, 2022 Other States sector, the concentration of life sciences employment in the Salt Lake City MSA was the second-highest in medical devices and diagnostics, and seventh-highest in research, testing, and medical laboratories.19 Among 136 MSAs with 75,000 to 250,000 employee jobs in the private sector, the Ogden-Clearfield MSA was fifth in medical devices and diagnostics specialization, the Ogden-Clearfield and Provo-Orem MSAs were eighth and ninth in therapeutics and pharmaceuticals specialization, and the Provo-Orem MSA was second in biosciences-related distribution specialization.20 Among 190 MSAs with fewer than 75,000 employee jobs in the private sector, the Logan MSA in Utah and Idaho was seventh in medical devices and diagnostics, and eighth in research, testing, and medical laboratories.21 (Life Sciences Companies’ Share of Total Employment; Top 20 States by Employment) 5.6% % 20-State Average Massachusetts New Jersey Utah Minnesota Indiana North Carolina California Pennsylvania Colorado Illinois Arizona Wisconsin Tennessee New York Florida Washington Michigan Ohio Texas Georgia 1.6% 3.9% 2.8% 2.7% 2.3% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 0.8% 3.5% 5.1% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% Note: The national average was 1.5% for all states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Workforce shares reflect a life sciences industry definition that aligns with historical data availability across states. Employment shares represent employees (no self-employed workers) at life sciences companies. For data and definition details, see Table 5.3 in Section 5 under Workforce Growth Trends by State. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages 0-Year verage 2.7%2023 2.6% November 2.9% gardner.utah.edu I 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 22 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,700 2,371 2,408 3,251 3,455 3,460 3,343 3,185 3,236 3,266 3,224 3,4 Section 4. Life Sciences in Higher Education 2,000 1,000 0 Figure 4.2: Higher 2000STEM 2001 Share 2002 of 2003 2004 Education 2005 2006 Degrees 2007 2008 2009 2010 Associate Degree Bachelor's Degree Awarded, 2000–2021 (STEM Percentage of Total USHE Degree Completions) Through teaching and research, colleges and universities in Utah support advances in life sciences and health care innovation. Increasing numbers of students earn degrees in fields essential for the success of life sciences companies. Meanwhile, research universities generate innovation and commercialization opportunities in life sciences, in part through federal funding. 20 $35 $30 20.0% Student Learning At Utah’s colleges and universities, students find and create opportunities that prepare them for varied roles at life sciences companies. Many individuals in life sciences careers benefit from academic programs in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM).22 From 2000 to 2021, based on counts by academic year ending on June 30, students at Utah’s public colleges and universities earned a total of 89,040 STEM degrees (see Figure 4.1).23 Of these, 60.6% were bachelor’s degrees, 22.8% were graduate degrees, and 16.6% were associate degrees. Annual degree completions rose from 2,371 STEM degrees in 2000 to 7,562 in 2021, an average increase of 5.7% per year. Growth rates exceeded 10% in 2002, 2003, 2015, 2019, 2020, and 2021. At Utah’s institutions of higher learning, STEM programs have also grown in terms of their share of graduates. In 2000, 13.1% of degree completions in the Utah System of Higher Education (USHE) were in STEM programs (see Figure 4.2). This share jumped to 15.3% in 2004 before declining gradually for eight years. Since 2012, the STEM share of USHE degrees has consistently risen, again surpassing 15% and reaching a high of 18.9% in 2021. From 2000 to 2021, STEM shares of degree completions at USHE institutions increased the most at the University of Utah (by 22.6 percentage points) and Utah Valley University (by 8.6 percentage points) (see Table 4.2).24 At Salt Lake Community College, Snow College, Utah State University, and Weber State University, STEM shares rose by less than the USHE average of 5.8 16.0% 12.0% 18.9% $25 $20 13.1% $15 $10 4.0% $5 0.0% $ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 8.0% Note: Completions are for associate, bachelor’s, and graduate degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields at colleges and universities in the Utah System of Higher Education (USHE). Academic years end on June 30 of the year indicated. Percentage labels are for 2000 and 2021. See Table 4.2 for annual STEM shares of 7,562 Degrees degree 100%completions by institution. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Department of 1.6% Snow College Education Education, Postsecondary 90% National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Data System 80% 1.7% Utah Tech University 70% percentage points. At Utah Tech University and Southern Utah 3.6% Southern Utah University University, STEM shares declined over the 21-year period but 60% Salt Lake Utah Community College increased significantly since 2001 at4.4% Southern University 50% and 2006 at Utah Tech University. More recently, ten-year trends 10.2% Weber State University 40% in STEM shares were positive at all institutions, with changes 30% Utah Valley University from 2011 to 2021 ranging from 2.816.3% to 19.8 percentage points. 20% In 2021, three universities — the University of Utah, Utah State 19.2% Utah State University University, and Utah Valley University — awarded a combined 10% University of Utah 5,944 for 78.6% of the 2021 STEM 0% STEM degrees. This accounted 43.1% total of 7,562 degrees from Utah’s eight public colleges and universities (see Figure 4.3). The University of Utah awarded the highest number of associate, bachelor’s, and graduate degrees in STEM, followed by Utah State University and Utah Valley University. 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 In Dis Figure 4.1: Higher Education STEM Degrees in Utah by Award Level, 2000–2021 (Number of Degree Completions at USHE Institutions) $350.0 8,000 $300.0 7,000 $250.0 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,700 2,371 2,408 $200.0 $211.1 5,163 5,400 4,591 4,801 $150.0 4,056 3,591 3,810 3,251 3,455 3,460 3,343 3,185 3,236 3,266 3,224 3,417 $100.0 7,562 $279.2 5,989 Inv Disc P $50.0 2,000 $0.0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 1,000 0 6,761 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Associate Degree Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Doctoral Degree Note: Completion counts are for degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields at colleges and universities in the Utah System of Higher Education (USHE). Academic years end on June 30 of the year indicated. $350.0 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System $300.0 INFORMED DECISIONS 20.0% 16.0% TM 18.9% 23 $250.0 $200.0 $267.6 $269.6 $295.2 $286.0 gardner.utah.edu $279.2 I $279.5 November 2023 Table 4.1: STEM Degrees Awarded by USHE Institution, 2000–2021 (Number of Degree Completions) Year Salt Lake Community College 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Snow College 128 142 201 241 237 243 256 223 216 282 240 234 252 260 311 321 355 326 300 312 327 331 76 65 80 76 81 77 64 53 52 49 55 48 59 43 42 81 69 67 42 45 81 118 Southern Utah University University of Utah 112 82 124 110 110 122 129 131 108 145 112 122 130 160 147 160 149 184 150 182 238 269 Utah State University 788 736 823 983 1,095 1,173 1,182 1,190 1,300 1,291 1,263 1,320 1,425 1,532 1,678 1,885 1,934 2,106 2,268 2,564 3,037 3,263 751 804 748 916 923 921 968 827 843 734 785 868 854 864 939 966 1,057 1,111 1,203 1,247 1,340 1,450 Utah Tech University 129 137 161 180 133 132 35 30 36 45 53 48 57 54 65 88 62 103 95 115 127 128 Utah Valley University 81 96 212 293 353 344 303 288 257 325 284 380 384 432 473 507 589 633 701 765 878 1,231 Weber State University 306 346 351 452 523 448 406 443 424 395 432 397 430 465 401 583 586 633 641 759 733 772 Total 2,371 2,408 2,700 3,251 3,455 3,460 3,343 3,185 3,236 3,266 3,224 3,417 3,591 3,810 4,056 4,591 4,801 5,163 5,400 5,989 6,761 7,562 Note: Completion counts are for associate, bachelor’s, and graduate degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields at colleges and universities in the Utah System of Higher Education (USHE). Academic years end on June 30 of the year indicated. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Table 4.2: STEM Share of Degrees Awarded by USHE Institutions, 2000–2021 (STEM Percentage of Total Degree Completions at the College or University) Year Salt Lake Community College 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Snow College 6.5% 6.3% 7.9% 9.8% 9.2% 8.7% 9.0% 8.3% 7.4% 9.4% 7.1% 6.9% 7.1% 7.5% 8.2% 9.5% 9.6% 8.7% 9.2% 9.7% 9.6% 9.6% 10.3% 9.3% 10.5% 10.5% 11.1% 11.3% 8.4% 7.8% 8.4% 8.3% 8.4% 6.4% 7.3% 5.9% 6.0% 10.0% 7.8% 7.1% 4.5% 4.4% 7.8% 11.3% Southern Utah University 10.8% 7.3% 11.3% 9.9% 10.2% 11.0% 10.6% 10.4% 8.0% 9.4% 7.0% 6.9% 8.2% 9.3% 9.2% 8.9% 8.5% 8.7% 6.7% 7.2% 8.9% 10.1% University of Utah 15.7% 15.4% 14.0% 16.1% 15.9% 16.8% 17.1% 17.3% 18.2% 18.1% 18.5% 18.4% 19.1% 19.7% 22.0% 23.7% 24.8% 25.9% 27.7% 31.0% 35.8% 38.2% Utah State University 21.4% 21.7% 20.1% 25.5% 26.2% 24.9% 23.1% 21.8% 21.2% 19.5% 19.8% 18.4% 15.7% 16.0% 16.8% 16.6% 17.6% 17.8% 18.8% 18.9% 20.4% 21.9% Utah Tech University 17.6% 18.9% 19.2% 19.8% 14.6% 14.0% 3.8% 3.0% 4.0% 4.5% 4.4% 3.3% 3.5% 3.3% 3.9% 5.4% 3.8% 6.3% 5.8% 6.7% 6.9% 6.8% Utah Valley University 3.9% 4.0% 7.5% 9.0% 10.9% 10.5% 9.7% 8.8% 7.9% 9.5% 7.7% 9.3% 8.6% 9.4% 9.2% 10.2% 11.9% 13.1% 12.2% 12.9% 13.8% 12.5% Weber State University 10.2% 10.4% 10.5% 13.3% 14.1% 11.9% 11.6% 11.8% 11.3% 10.1% 10.6% 9.7% 9.7% 10.0% 8.7% 11.7% 11.8% 12.5% 12.2% 13.9% 13.1% 12.7% Total 13.1% 12.7% 12.9% 15.1% 15.3% 14.9% 14.3% 13.7% 13.5% 13.4% 12.7% 12.4% 12.2% 12.7% 13.2% 14.6% 15.2% 15.8% 16.1% 17.2% 18.8% 18.9% Note: Completion counts are for associate, bachelor’s, and graduate degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields at colleges and universities in the Utah System of Higher Education (USHE). Academic years end on June 30 of the year indicated. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System November 2023 I gardner.utah.edu 24 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM $50.0 0.0% $0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 4.0% 2018 Figure 4.3: Higher Education STEM Degrees Awarded by College and University, 2021 (Institution Share of USHE STEM Degree Completions) 100% 90% 80% 1.7% Utah Tech University 3.6% Southern Utah University 40% 10.2% Weber State University 30% 16.3% Utah Valley University 19.2% Utah State University Note: Completions are for associate, bachelor’s, and graduate degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields at colleges and universities in the Utah System of Higher Education (USHE). This data for the 2021 academic year covers from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. See Table 4.1 for annual STEM degree completion totals by institution since 2000. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 5.5%in From FY 2018 to FY 2022, the average annual6.6% NIH funding Total for inflation, was $279.5 million. The University 45.9% 30.1% 12.0% 728 of Utah received most of this funding (87.6%), followed Utah 0.2% by5.0% StatePatents University (3.4%), Brigham Young University (2.1%), Total Utah 44.0% 25.3% 25.5% 799 ValleyIssued University (0.1%), and Weber State University (0.04%) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% (see Figure 4.5 and Table 4.3). The NIH awarded the remaining Therapeutics Pharmaceuticals Medical Devices 6.8% of its Utah fundingand outside of higher education, primarily Diagnostics Digital Health Biotechnology to life sciences companies. Institutions of higher learning received the vast majority 3.0% ($1,302.6 million) of NIH funding in Utah from FY 2018 to FY Invention 12.1% Total 33 2022. The remaining $95.084.9% million in grants, contracts, and Disclosures direct payments went to 51 companies and nonprofits.Total The Patents 76.0% 12.0% 12.0% 25 Issuedaward amount outside of academia was $769,600, median 0% ranging 20%from $19,500 40% 80% Among 100% the with awards to60% $10.0 million. Biotechnology and 21 lifeMedical Devices recipients of Therapeutics NIH funding, sciences companies and two Pharmaceuticals health care providers each received over $1 million. Life sciences industry recipients included therapeutic and pharmaceutical companies; research, testing, and medical laboratories; and medical device companies. Invention Utah, adjusted Disclosures 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Research Funding Academic research is essential for the success of many life $350.0 $300.0 sciences companies. Life sciences research at Utah’s $279.2 public $250.0private higher education institutions attracts out-ofand $200.0 $211.1 state funding, such as federal grants, to the state. The faculty, $150.0 staff, and students at Utah colleges and universities apply $100.0 research in ways that improve health care and develop medical $50.0 technologies for commercialization. $0.0 The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds medical research and is the primary source of funding for academic life sciences research in Utah. From federal fiscal year (FY) 2012 to 2022, NIH funding grew by an average of 2.4% per year, adjusted for inflation (see Figure 4.4). The largest increases happened from FY 2015 to FY 2020 following years without sustained real growth. In FY 2022, Utah-based organizations received $279.2 million in awards from NIH, consisting of grants (92.0%), research and development contracts (6.5%), and direct payments (1.5%).25 A significant portion of NIH awards fund life sciences research. NIH priorities include basic and clinical research to help understand, treat, and prevent a variety of health concerns. Nine of the 27 NIH institutes and centers awarded more than $50 million each in Utah funding from FY 2018 to FY 2022. Ordered from most funding to least, the nine institutes address general medical sciences; heart, lung, and blood diseases; cancer; allergy and infectious diseases; neurological disorders and stroke; child health and human development; drug abuse; diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases; and eye diseases and visual disorders. These institutes provided 72.2% of all NIH funding to Utah during the five years.26 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Annual Price Index (CPI) from their fiscal year CPI to the 2022 calendar year CPI. Source: U.S. Department University of Health andofHuman National Institutes of Health, Utah Services,Utah State University Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) 43.1% University of Utah 0% 2022 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 4.4% Salt Lake Community College 10% 2021 $279.2 $300.0 100.0% $250.0 90.0% 81.5% $200.0 80.0% $211.1 71.9% 70.0% $150.0 61.8% 60.2% 60.0% $100.0 50.0% $50.0 36.8% 40.0% $0.0 30.0% 20.0% 15.0% 12.5% 11.0% 10.0% FY = Federal fiscal years ending September 30 of the year indicated 0.0% Note: FundingInvention types were grants, contracts, and direct payments. the first and Patents LicenseLabels are forStartups last year. Amounts are adjusted for inflation by the Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Consumer Disclosures Issued Agreements 60% 20% 2020 $350.0 1.6% Snow College 50% 2019 Figure 4.4: Utah Awards from the National InstitutesAverage of Health, FY 2002–2022 University of Utah Utah State University (Funding in Millions of 2022 Dollars) Brigham Young University Other Organizations 7,562 Degrees 70% Inv Disc University Innovation and Commercialization Research at Utah’s institutions of higher learning supports innovation and commercialization in the life sciences. Particularly at leading research universities, faculty, staff, and students invent, patent, and disseminate new technologies related to health care. This section documents life sciences innovation at the University of Utah and Utah State University.27 Of Utah’s public and private institutions of higher learning, these two universities have received the most federal funding for life sciences research from the National Institutes of Health (see Figure 4.5 and Table 4.3). They are also the only universities in Utah that the American Council on Education has designated “R1” for their “very high levels of research activity” in terms of research and development expenditures, doctoral degree awards, and research staffing levels.28 25 gardner.utah.edu I November 2023 Inve Disclo Pa I Table 4.3: Utah Awards from the National Institutes of Health by Recipient, FY 2018–2022 (Funding in Millions of 2022 Dollars) Recipient 2018 University of Utah 2019 2020 2021 2020 2021 279.2 Share $252.1 $245.1 $244.9 $1,224.5 87.6% Utah State University $6.6 $9.3 $9.9 $11.1 $10.1 $9.4 $47.0 3.4% Brigham Young University $4.2 $7.0 $5.9 $6.0 $30.0 2.1% $0.0 $0.4 $7.5 7,562 $0.0 $5.4 Utah Valley University $0.0 $0.4 $0.2 $0.8 0.1% Weber State University $0.3 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.3 0.0% $18.1 $17.4 $17.8 $19.0 $95.0 6.8% $295.2 $286.0 $279.2 $279.5 $1,397.6 100.0% 6,761 Note: Over the five years, NIH awards included grants (93.3% of all funding), contracts (6.0%), and direct payments (0.7%). Other recipients include 48 companies, primarily life sciences, two health care providers, and a nonprofit foundation. Amounts are adjusted for inflation by the Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) from their fiscal year CPI to the 2022 calendar year CPI. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) Definitions for University Research and Commercialization or's Degree Health Master's Degree Doctoral Degree by Recipient, FY 2018–2022 llege Total $259.7 2009 2010 Figure 2011 2012 2013 Awards 2014 2015 2016 2018 Institutes 2019 2020 of2021 4.5: Utah from the2017 National y Annual Average $233.8 $0.0 5,989 Other Organizations $22.6 5,163 5,400$19.1 4,801 4,591 Total $267.6 $269.6 3,810 4,056 3,591 3,266 3,224FY3,417 = Federal fiscal years ending September 30 of the year indicated 8.9% 2022 $233.8 (Funding in Millions of 2022 Dollars) $350.0 $300.0 $267.6 $269.6 2018 2019 $295.2 $286.0 $279.2 $279.5 2020 2021 2022 Annual Average n Invention Disclosure – Research universities in Utah have established processes for identifying new technologies from faculty and students that may have commercial and public value. Some researchers who disclose (document) an invention also apply for a patent, pursue a licensing agreement, and/or assist in forming a startup. $250.0 $200.0 $150.0 $100.0 $50.0 n Licensing Agreement – This is a contract between a university and a business for the application of university innovation. It typically stipulates payment for permission to use a specific technology. $0.0 University of Utah Utah State University Brigham Young University Other Organizations n Patent Issued – Patent applications from university researchers in Utah are submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which may then grant the patent. FY = Federal fiscal years ending September 30 of the year indicated Note: Other recipients include 53 organizations, primarily life sciences companies but also 100.0% Utah Valley University and Weber State University with a combined $1.8 million in average 90.0%NIH funding. Funding types are grants (most common), contracts, and direct annual 81.5% 80.0% Amounts payments. 71.9% are adjusted for inflation by the Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) from their fiscal year CPI to the 2022 calendar year CPI. 70.0% 61.8% Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,60.2% National Institutes of Health, 60.0% Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) n Startups – In terms of higher education research commercialization, a startup refers to a new business or organization that formed to further develop and use a licensed technology from academic researchers. 50.0% 36.8% 40.0% 30.0% Recent measures of research activity show noteworthy 20.0% 15.0% 12.5% 11.0% productivity in life sciences programs at leading research 10.0% universities in Utah. From 2018 to 2022, based on counts by 0.0% Invention Patents Startups academic year ending on June 30, theLicense annual number of life Disclosures Issued Agreements Life sciences featured prominently among all new innovations tracked by technology transfer offices at the two universities. For example, from 2018 to 2022, life sciences technologies were the subject of 81.5% of all patents issued at the University of Utah and 60.2% of all of its license agreements (see Figure 4.6). During the same period at Utah State University, life sciences accounted for 36.8% of all patents issued and 11.0% of all license agreements. At both institutions, life sciences shares of all invention disclosures and startups were in between the institutions’ shares for patents and licensing. During the academic years 2018 through 2022, most new life sciences technologies from the University of Utah were sciences invention disclosures averaged 145.6 per year at the University of Utah Utah State University University of Utah and 6.6 at Utah State University (see Table 4.4).29 Their five-year averages for life sciences patents issued 6.6% were 159.8 5.5% (awarded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) Invention and 5.0 patents per45.9% year, respectively. Annual variation Total was 30.1% 12.0% Disclosures 728 significant for both measures of research activity. 0.2% 5.0% Turning Patents to commercialization, the total number of license Total 44.0% 25.3% 25.5% Issued agreements in life sciences over five years was 77 for 799 the 0%Utah and 20% 19 for40% 60%University. 80% During 100%this University of Utah State and Pharmaceuticals Medical Devices period, 34 lifeTherapeutics sciences startups came from the University of Utah Diagnostics Digital Health Biotechnology and one life sciences startup came from Utah State University. November 2023 Invention Disclosures I 3.0% gardner.utah.edu 84.9% 12.1% Total 33 26 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 6,000 5,000 4,591 4,801 7,562 5,163 5,400 4,056 6,761 3,266 3,224 3,417 3,591 3,810 3,251 3,455 3,460 3,343 3,185 3,236 5,989 3,000 2,371 2,408 2,700 Table 4.4: Life Sciences Innovation5,163 at the University of Utah and Utah State University, 2018–2022 5,400 2,000 4,591 4,801 (Counts) 1,000 3,591 3,810 4,056 3,266 3,224 3,417 Measure 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Annual Average 5-YearTotal 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 University2000 of Utah 7,562 Associate Degree Bachelor's Degree 128 Master's Degree Doctoral Invention Disclosures 99 159 182 160 Degree 145.6 728 6,761 Patents Issued 1645,989 144 216 145 130 159.8 799 5,400 16 2019 2020 6 2021 19 25 11 15.4 77 2009 2010 License 2011 Agreements 2012 2013 20144,591 20154,801 20165,163 2017 2018 $350.0 4,056 Startups 6 4 8 12 4 6.8 34 lor's Degree Master's Degree Doctoral Degree 3,810 $295.2 3,417 3,591 266 3,224 Utah $286.0 $300.0 State University $279.2 $279.5 $269.6 $267.6 Invention Disclosures 16 7 3 5 2 6.6 33 $250.0 20.0% $350.0 Issued Patents 12 318.9% 3 4 3 5.0 25 $200.0 $295.2 License Agreements 4 3 9 3 0 3.8 19 16.0% $286.0 $300.0 $279.2 $279.5 13.1% $269.6 $267.6 Startups 0 0 0 0 0.2 1 $150.0 09 2010 12.0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 12019 2020 2021 $250.0 Total 18.9% 's Degree 8.0% Master's Degree Doctoral Degree $100.0 Invention 115 166 131 187 162 152.2 761 $200.0 Disclosures 4.0% Issued $50.0 Patents 176 147 219 149 133 164.8 824 $150.0 $350.0 License 20 9 28$0.0 28 11 19.2 96 0.0% Agreements $100.0 $295.2 Startups 7 4 8 12 4 7.0 35 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Annual $286.0 $300.0 $279.2 $279.5 $269.6 $267.6 Average Note: Academic years end on June 30 of the year indicated. $50.0 $250.0 Source: University of Utah, PIVOT Center, personal communication; Utah State University, Technology Transfer Services, personal communication University of Utah Utah State University 9% $0.0 $200.0 Brigham Young University Other Organizations 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Annual Figure 4.6: Life Sciences Shares for Innovation Measures in therapeutics and pharmaceuticals (45.9% of invention Average $150.0 7,562 Degrees 100% at the University of Utah and Utah State University, disclosures) or medical devices and diagnostics (30.1%) University of Utah Utah State University 100.0% $100.0 1.6% Snow College 2018–2022 (see Figure 4.7). The remaining 24.0% of disclosures were in 90% Brigham Young University Other Organizations 90.0% 81.5% $50.0 (Percentage of 5-Year Total Counts for All Fields) 80.0% diagnostics, digital health, or biotechnology. In contrast, at 80% 71.9% 1.7% Utah Tech University 70.0%State University, the majority of life sciences Utah invention $0.0 61.8% 60.2% 100.0% 70% 60.0% 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Annual 3.6% Southern Utah University disclosures were in biotechnology (84.9%) (see Figure 4.8). 90.0% 81.5% 50.0% Average 60% 80.0% The remaining disclosures 36.8% for new technologies were in 71.9% 40.0% 4.4%Utah Salt Lake University of Utah StateCommunity University College 70.0% 50% 61.8% 30.0% therapeutics and pharmaceuticals (12.1%) or medical devices 60.2% Brigham Young University Other Organizations 60.0% ty 20.0% 15.0% 10.2% Weber State University 40% 12.5% and diagnostics (3.0%). 11.0% 50.0% 10.0% 36.8% 40.0% Of the 25 patents awarded to Utah State University researchers 30% ollege 100.0% 0.0% 16.3% Utah Valley University 30.0% Invention Patents Startups in life sciences during these years, the License biotechnology share of 90.0% 20% 20.0% Disclosures Issued Agreements 15.0% 81.5% y 12.5% 19.2% Utah State University 11.0% 80.0% 71.9% 76.0% was somewhat lower than the disclosure share. For both the 10.0% 10% 70.0% University of Utah segment Utah State medical devices and diagnostics and University the therapeutics 61.8% 60.2% University of 0.0% 43.1% Utah 60.0% 0% Invention Patents License Startups and pharmaceuticals segment, patents issued constituted 50.0% Disclosures Issued Agreements 30 6.6% 5.5% 12.0% of the university’s life sciences total. Nationwide, for an 36.8% 40.0% ege University of Utah Utah State University Invention Total 30.0% overlapping period, calendar years 2018 to 2021, and including 45.9% 30.1% 12.0% Disclosures 728 20.0% 12.5% Note: The five-year 15.0% period is for academic years ending on June 30, 2022. innovation outside of higher education, the leading categories 11.0% 0.2% 5.0% 10.0% Source: University of Utah, PIVOT Center, personal communication; Utah 6.6% State University,5.5% for lifePatents sciences patent awards were medical and surgical devices Total Technology Transfer Services, personal communication 0.0% 44.0% 25.3% 25.5% Invention Total 31 Issued Invention Patents License Startups 799 45.9% 30.1% 12.0% (52.4%), pharmaceuticals (17.8%), and biochemistry (11.4%). Disclosures 728 Disclosures Issued Agreements 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 4.7: Life Sciences Innovation Categories at the 5.0% 0.2% University of Utah Utah State University Therapeutics and Pharmaceuticals Medical Devices Patents Total Figure 4.8: Life Sciences Innovation Categories at Utah University of Utah,44.0% 2018–2022 25.3% $350.0 25.5% Issued Diagnostics Digital Health Biotechnology 799 $279.2 $300.0 State University, 2018–2022 (Share of 5-Year Total Counts) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 6.6% 5.5% $250.0 2021 2020 2021 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 4,000 279.2 Invention $200.0 $211.1 Therapeutics and Pharmaceuticals 45.9% 30.1% Disclosures Diagnostics Digital Health $150.0 60% 5.0% Total 25.5% 3.0% 799 Total 12.1% 80% 100% 33 Patents Therapeutics and Pharmaceuticals 76.0% Digital Health Issued Diagnostics Medical Devices 12.0% 12.0% Total Biotechnology 25 Invention Disclosures 0.2% 44.0% 20% 25.3% 84.9% 40% 2021 2022 9.2 0% 20% 40% 60% Invention Disclosures Pharmaceuticals 84.9% I NPatents F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 20% Therapeutics and Pharmaceuticals 40% Total 33 12.0% 12.0% Total 25 60% 80% 100% Biotechnology Medical Devices Note: The five-year period is for academic years ending on June 30, 2022. Source: Utah State University, Technology Transfer Services, personal communication 3.0% Biotechnology Total 12.1% 33 100% 12.1% 76.0% 0% 100% 12.0% 12.0% Total 25 76.0% Issued 2 80% Note: The five-year period is for academic years ending on June 30, 2022. andpersonalMedical Devices Source: University ofTherapeutics Utah, PIVOT Center, communication 3.0% 84.9% Patents Issued 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 $100.0 Patents $50.0 Issued Invention $0.0 Disclosures0% (Share of 5-Year Total Counts) Medical Devices Total 12.0% 728 Biotechnology 27 gardner.utah.edu I November 2023 Section 5: Research Methods Table 5.1: Life Sciences Industry Definition – Handpicked Companies This section provides additional insight into how we conducted our analysis. We provide notes about developing the life sciences industry definition, creating estimates for selfemployed workers, calculating workforce demographics for workers in the life sciences industry and STEM occupations, running our economic model, estimating tax revenues and government expenditures, comparing Utah’s life sciences industry to other states, and analyzing life sciences student learning. I gardner.utah.edu Establishments2 RESEARCH, TESTING, AND MEDICAL LABORATORIES Defining the Industry The Gardner Institute definition for Utah’s life sciences industry includes every company in 17 industries (see Table 1.1 in Section 1) and 126 establishments of named (handpicked) companies in 41 other NAICS industries (see Table 5.1). The authors’ review with BioUtah and BioHive for life sciences companies outside of the 17 primary industries centered on, but was not limited to, NAICS 541380 “Testing Laboratories and Services” and NAICS 541715 “Research and Development in the Physical Engineering, and Life Sciences (Except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology),” both of which have a concentration of life sciences companies. Sections 1 and 2 of the report utilize this definition. Section 3 on workforce and growth trends by state adopts an updated life sciences definition for better alignment as the industry has evolved in Utah and other states. For their March 2023 research brief, the authors included 17 industries under the 2022 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), up from 15 NAICS industries in previous Gardner Institute research.32 For results comparable to other states, self-employed workers and handpicked companies are excluded from this section. The updated definition emerged from a national literature review with input and validation from BioUtah and BioHive leadership. The literature review included publications from 2019 to 2022 from the Economic Development Corporation of Utah, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, California Life Sciences Association, Indiana Business Research Center, Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, Ohio Life Sciences Foundation, and North Carolina Biotechnology Center.33 This report focuses on companies in the private sector and does not include public sector activity in the labor force or economic impact analysis. Public sector activity in life sciences includes the academic research described in Section 4 and government programs. November 2023 NAICS Code1 Segment and Company 28 Advanced Clinical 541715 1 Aliri Bioanalysis 541380 1 Alliance for Multispecialty Research 541715 1 ALS 541380 1 Alterra Medical 541611 1 American Biotech Labs 541380 1 American West Analytical Labs 541380 1 Analytical Resource Laboratories 541380 1 Ancestry.com3 541990 1 Battelle Memorial Institute 541715 3 Caisson Labs 541715 1 CCT Research4 541715 1 Celerion 541715 1 CenExel 541715 1 Chrysalis Clinical Research 541715 1 Clinical ink 541511 1 Clinical Reference Laboratory 513210 1 Contract Testing Laboratories of America 541380 1 CR Foundation 541715 1 Dixon Information 541380 1 DNB Engineering 541380 1 Dyad Labs 541380 1 EC Service 541715 1 FlintBio 424590 1 Fresenius 611430 1 Howard Hughes Medical Institute 541715 1 ICON 541715 2 J Lewis Research 541715 5 Labcorp 6 541380 541690 541715 4 LifeStance Health 621330 1 Mobile MBS 621512 1 Natera 541380 1 NutriBiome 541380 1 Precision Diagnostics 541380 1 Precision Testing Technologies 541380 1 Progenitor MDX 541380 1 Quest Diagnostics 621512 2 Rapid Genomics7 541380 1 Regeneron Pharmaceuticals 541990 1 Renalytix 5 513210 1 Revance Therapeutics, Inc. 541380 1 Sarcos Technology and Robotics 541715 1 8 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Segment and Company NAICS Code1 Establishments2 Sema4 Genomics 541380 1 Smart Electric Power Association 541715 1 Sorenson Forensics 541380 1 Sotera Health 541380 541690 551114 3 Southwest Research Institute 541715 NAICS Code1 Segment and Company Establishments2 BIOSCIENCES-RELATED DISTRIBUTION 1-800 Contacts 456130 493110 3 Biogen 541990 1 BioUtah 813910 1 Celgene 425120 1 425120 1 11 1 Syneos Health 541715 1 Fluidx Medical Technology Thermo Fisher Scientific9 541715 1 Intrepid Biosciences 541612 1 425120 1 US BioTek Laboratories 541380 1 Kyowa Hakko Utah Kidney Research Institute 541715 1 MiMedx Group 425120 1 Scientific Consumables and Instrumentation 423840 1 Syneos Health 425120 1 Verily Life Sciences10 541715 1 Wasatch Labs 541380 1 Western Institute for Veterans Research 813211 1 Segment Total Thermo Fisher Scientific 67 326111 9 1 Segment Total MEDICAL DEVICES AND DIAGNOSTICS 13 THERAPEUTICS AND PHARMACEUTICALS AccuBreath 541715 1 ATL Technology 423690 1 ACELYRIN 541715 1 BioFi 334412 1 Bastion Technologies 541715 1 541715 1 Biomerics 326199 1 GlycoMira Therapeutics Birdie Resolution Pharmaceutical 813910 1 Halia Therapeutics 541715 1 BraveHeart Wireless 513199 1 Ileo Science 325199 1 Carterra 334513 1 Intrinsic Medicine 541990 1 Espiritu Design 533110 1 KalVista Pharmaceuticals 541715 1 Extreme Motus 441227 1 Lipocine 541715 1 Fresenius 541613 561110 621492 4 Navigen 541715 1 OmniLytics 541715 1 Genestat Molecular Diagnostics 541613 1 Tula Health 621399 1 INNERgy Development 541715 1 IONIQ Sciences 541715 1 JD Machine 332710 1 Leupold 333310 1 Microsurgical Innovations 541715 1 Myriad Genetics 561499 1 Neonatal Rescue 523910 1 Nusano 541690 1 nView Medical 541990 1 Opticare Vision Services 333310 1 PhotoPharmics 541715 1 Ripple Neuro 541715 2 Robin Healthcare 561990 1 Sorenson BioScience 333511 1 Steribin 335139 1 TherapEase Innovations 449210 1 423740 541715 2 Zien Medical Technologies 541715 1 Zigg Design 332710 11 Thermo Fisher Scientific 9 Segment Total I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Segment Total 11 Life Sciences Total (Handpicked) 126 Notes: 1. NAICS codes identify detailed industries from the 2022 North American Industry Classification System commonly used to categorize companies. 2. An establishment is a business location or unit. A company may have multiple Utah establishments in one or more NAICS industries. Counts do not include proprietorships with only self-employed workers or other companies without Utah employees. 3. The part of Ancestry.com primarily involved in DNA and lab testing is included. 4. CCT Research is a subsidiary of Avacare Clinical Research Network. 5. PRA Health Sciences is part of ICON. 6. Besides its four handpicked establishments that were formerly Covance, Labcorp has 23 Utah establishments included based on their NAICS industries (541714 and 621511). 7. Rapid Genomics is part of the LGC Group. 8. Several life sciences companies have a significant presence in a segment besides the one assigned for this study: Renalytix, Fluidx, and Tula Health in the "medical devices and diagnostics" segment and Nusano and Celgene in the "therapeutics and pharmaceuticals" segment. Segment assignments in the study are based primarily on NAICS industries. Also, Celgene is part of Bristol Myers Squibb. 9. Thermo Fisher Scientific includes Invitrogen and Pharmaceutical Product Development (PPD). 10. Verily Life Sciences is part of Alphabet Inc. 11. Besides its handpicked establishment for women’s health, Myriad Genetics has two Utah establishments included based on their NAICS industry (541714). 12. As a trade association, BioUtah does not fit neatly in any segment. In 2022, BioHive was an entity in the BioUtah organization. In 2023, BioHive became a distinct nonprofit. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Firm Find and personal communication 1 35 29 gardner.utah.edu I November 2023 Self-Employed Workers The number of self-employed workers in Utah’s life sciences industry is not available from the Utah Department of Workforce Services (DWS) because its data come from surveys answered only by companies with employees. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) includes self-employed workers, referred to as proprietors. BEA provides Utah proprietor employment for large industry groupings through 2021. DWS provides industry and company granularity for Utah in 2022 that matches our definition of the life sciences industry. For this reason, to estimate the number of proprietors, we multiplied DWS employment in each specific NAICS industry by the 2021 ratio of proprietors to total employment in the corresponding larger NAICS industry grouping from BEA. To estimate proprietors’ income, we determined average proprietors’ income for corresponding BEA industry groupings in 2021. We multiplied our 2022 proprietor employment estimates by average proprietors’ income in 2021, adjusted for inflation to 2022 dollars using the consumer price index for all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted. This method understates proprietors’ income by any 2022 earnings growth above inflation. industry and STEM occupations. In the five-year ACS IPUMS data release, 2017 to 2021, the Utah sample included 83,066 housing units. Point estimates shown in the eight charts benefit from person-level weights that make the ACS sample more representative of the general population. Confidence intervals around these point estimates are based on a corresponding series of 80 person-level “replicate” weight variables that carefully represent sampling error possibilities. The U.S. Census Bureau prepared both types of ACS weights. Life Sciences Industry Under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) an industry categorizes a company’s primary product or service, its main line of business. The smallest demographic group in the workforce for the life sciences industry was American Indian or Alaska Native with 18 responses, and there were 20 responses from Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander people and 22 responses from Black or African American people. All other groups had more than 50 responses from people working in a life sciences NAICS code. Confidence intervals in Figures 1.7 through 1.10 help readers assess inherent uncertainty in generalizing from high-quality sample data to the general population of working adults. ACS IPUMS data include demographic data by industry at the four-digit NAICS code level. Results in this section include the nine four-digit NAICS codes listed in Table 5.2.35 Responses from individuals working in each industry were weighted by 100% or less based on the share of employment within the fourdigit NAICS code that is included in the life sciences definition. Weights to incorporate life sciences shares of aggregated NAICS industries were applied in the ACS dataset along with published person weights from the U.S. Census Bureau that make the ACS sample more representative of the general population. Workforce Demographic Analysis Results in Figures 1.7 through 1.14 rely on a U.S. Census Bureau survey. Each year, approximately 1% of households in Utah and other states respond to American Community Survey (ACS) questions on individuals’ employment status, occupation, industry, race, ethnicity, and sex. The University of Minnesota compiles and prepares ACS data in its Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS).34 Workforce demographics results in Section 1 are from five years of pooled data in pursuit of reliably large sample sizes for demographic groups in the life sciences Table 5.2: Life Sciences Share of Industry Employment in Utah, 2017–2021 Share of Jobs in Four-Digit NAICS Industries1 Four-Digit ACS Industries2 Life Sciences All Six-Digit NAICS Codes Within Four-Digit ACS Industries by Life Sciences Definition Treatment Not Life Sciences Life Sciences Not Life Sciences 3254 100.0% 0.0% 32541[1 to 4] — 3345 32.5% 67.5% 33451[0, 6, & 7] 33451[1 to 5 & 9] 3391 91.0% 9.0% 33911[2 to 5] 339116 4234 41.6% 58.4% 4234[50 & 60] 4234[10 to 40 & 90] 621M 75.2% 24.8% 621511 621512 & 6219[10, 91, & 99] 424M 60.6% 39.4% 424210 4246[10 & 90] 5417 57.3% 42.7% 54171[3 to 4] 5417 [15 & 20] Notes: 1. Percentages are based on five-year averages for total private employment by industry, without accounting for handpicked life sciences companies in other NAICS industries. NAICS codes are from the 2022 North American Industry Classification System commonly used to categorize companies. 2. The American Community Survey (ACS) uses aggregated industries, identified by four-digit codes in the hierarchical NAICS structure. Each industry with a four-digit code incorporates multiple six-digit NAICS industries. In ACS data, NAICS 621M combines NAICS 6215 and 6219, and NAICS 424M combines NAICS 4242 and 4246. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Current Employment Statistics by state and metro area November 2023 I gardner.utah.edu 30 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM STEM Occupations The Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) system categorizes a worker’s role based on the nature of their work and skills, regardless of their employer’s product, service, or industry. Examples of occupations comprising the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) definition include 151131 computer programmers, 15-2021 mathematicians, and 172031 biomedical engineers. People in these occupations work in multiple industries. The smallest demographic group in the STEM workforce was Black or African American with 23 responses, and there were 24 responses from Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander people and 25 responses from American Indian or Alaska Native people. All other groups had more than 50 responses from people in STEM occupations. Much larger sample sizes were available by sex in Utah and by race, ethnicity, and sex in the U.S. Confidence intervals in Figures 1.11 through 1.14 help readers assess inherent uncertainty in generalizing from high-quality sample data to the general population of working adults. Specific occupations are categorized under the 2018 SOC system used by the U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). A BLS STEM definition identifies 102 six-digit SOC codes for occupations in life and physical science, engineering, mathematics, and information technology.36 Workforce demographics results in this document do not include the social science, architecture, or health care occupations found in the BLS STEM definition, since life sciences companies are less likely to employ people in those three fields. Most life sciences workers (85.0%) are not in STEM occupations, and even with this adjustment, more than 90% of STEM workers employed in Utah are outside of the life sciences industry. Much of STEM workers’ knowledge and experience is transferrable across industries. The choice to count import substitution as an economic impact rests on the use of the counterfactual, “What would Utah’s economy look like if it had no life sciences industry?” With this framing question, the criterion for determining what economic activity in an industry should be counted as an economic impact is whether economic activity would be lost if the industry were not present in the state. This criterion qualifies exports as economic impacts and prompts us to consider what Utah companies and individuals would buy from other states if Utah’s life sciences industry were not supplying these goods and services. The life sciences industry’s in-state sales keep dollars in Utah that otherwise would leave the state to pay for imports from other states and countries.37 In this sense, all production by the life sciences industry is an economic impact, either through this “import substitution” logic or the previous “export” rationale. TheWhite, lifenotsciences industry generates economic effects 82.5% White, n Hispanic or Latino 78.2% (contributions and impacts) through its spending on wages 17.5% Mino Minority Race or Ethnicity 21.8% and purchases from Utah-based 6.9% vendors (direct effects) and Asian 2.4% 6.0% the rippling Hispanic effect orofLatino this spending through the economy 14.0% 4.1% (indirect and induced effects). Life sciences companies’ Blac Two or More Races 4.9% spending produces indirect effects when their local suppliers Some Other Race 2.0% 5.5% 0.7% hire employees andAmerican make purchases from other local vendors. Black or African 1.1% 0.5% Finally, effects Native induced Hawaiian/Pacific Islanderoccur when the employees of life American In 0.9% 0.4%suppliers spend their wages in Native Haw sciences Americancompanies Indian or Alaskaand Nativetheir 1.1% 0.0% 5.1). 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% the Utah Economy (see Figure STEM Occupations Figure 5.1: Economic Flow of Direct, Indirect, and Induced Economic Impacts Economic and Fiscal Impacts Economic impact is a concept that focuses on jobs and spending arising directly and indirectly from new money entering a state. Exports from a state are one way to attract outside dollars. For example, Utah life sciences companies sell drugs and medical devices to pharmacies and health care providers in other states and countries. The direct jobs and spending that produce goods and services sold out of state generate economic impacts. In studies such as this encompassing an entire industry, the direct, indirect, and induced economic activity that would be lost to a state in the absence of the industry can also be considered an economic impact. We refer to this as import substitution, with in-state production and consumption displacing imports to a state, whether from abroad or another state. Whereas the life sciences industry’s out-of-state sales (exports) bring in additional resources to grow a state’s economy, in-state sales prevent an outflow of resources to purchase from companies outside the state (import substitution). INFORMED DECISIONS TM Other Occupations Profe Educa Life Sciences Industry $ Services and Supplies Direct Effects Employees W Leisure $ B Indirect Effects $ Induced Effects Transportat $ Financ Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Na Employment 31 Earnings 2.3% 54,959 3.4% $5.3 5.4% 127,424 182,383 gardner.utah.edu 6.1% $9.3 I November 2023 $14.6 companies. For example, medical laboratories may buy medical devices from in-state vendors. We subtract out the indirect and induced impacts of such activity because our industry definition already counts all life science company activity in its direct impacts. For the six NAICS sectors that include life sciences companies, we assume the value of transactions between life sciences companies is proportional to the life sciences industry’s share of each sector. The value of these transactions, removed as double-counting, refers to purchases a life sciences company makes from a supplier that is also a life sciences company. Life sciences companies’ purchases from their suppliers outside of the life sciences industry are included in economic impacts. This overview of the Gardner Policy Institute fiscal model supplements the description in Section 2. We use the fiscal model to estimate new state and local revenues and expenditures (see Figure 5.2). The methodology for local revenues and expenditures expanded relative to methodology used in the Gardner Institute’s 2018 report on the Life Sciences industry. Previously, revenues and expenses associated with cities and towns were excluded but improved data capture allowed for a more thorough analysis of the local impacts in this report. Additionally, capital expenditure data became available since the last report, allowing for inclusion of the impact to statewide and local capital expenditures in this report. Following the previous methodology would have resulted in an estimated $297.4 million in direct net state and local revenue, $366.7 in indirect and induced net state and local revenue, for a total estimated net positive fiscal impact of $664.1 million in 2022. Inputs to the fiscal model are employment, personal income, output, and population results produced by the REMI PI+ model based on life sciences industry activity in Utah in 2022. Tax revenue estimates are based on past ratios of historical tax receipts to personal income, industry output, and employment. All government expenditures reported in this memo are estimates based on Utah historical averages for spending per capita, adjusted to 2022 dollars, and overall population estimates and estimates of different age categories associated with the 2022 life sciences industry. Direct estimates for life sciences industry sales, GDP, non-payroll spending, compensation, self-employment, and proprietors’ income are based on these six measures’ industry-specific relationships with employment or wages. Estimates for the first four items are from the REMI PI+ economic model described below, which incorporates national- and state-level data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Estimates for the last two items (self-employment jobs and proprietors’ income) are based on 2021 industry averages directly from the BEA. To estimate the indirect and induced effects resulting from direct economic activity in the life sciences industry, we customized an economic impact model for Utah. REMI PI+ version 3.0, developed by Regional Economic Models, Inc., is a dynamic, multi-regional simulation model that estimates economic, population, and labor market impacts of specific economic or policy changes. The model incorporates inputoutput relationships, general equilibrium effects, econometric relationships, and economic geography effects. The 70-sector model generally aggregates to two-digit or three-digit NAICS sectors, rather than fully incorporating the six-digit and selected company specificity of our data from DWS. We adjusted for the difference in wages between the aggregated NAICS sectors in REMI and actual wages at companies in our life sciences definition to regain precision lost by the model’s 70-sector limitation. We used REMI to estimate the amount of Utah life sciences output sold in-state, out-of-state, and outside the country. REMI reports 2022 sales by location for large industries, based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The 17 NAICS industries that make up Utah’s life sciences sector fall under six of REMI’s large industries. For example, “pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing” falls under “chemical manufacturing.” We assumed life sciences companies in Utah sold similar percentages of their 2022 output in-state, out-of-state, and abroad, compared to averages for all companies in the large industries where they belong. We adjust our model to avoid double-counting in cases where life sciences companies buy inputs from other life sciences Figure 5.2: Diagram of Fiscal Impact Calculations State Fiscal Impacts Personal Income Taxes State Sales Taxes Corporate Income Taxes State Non-Education Expenditures Inputs* Personal Income Employment Local Fiscal Impacts County and City/Town Sales Taxes Property Taxes Sales Revenue Total Population County and City/Town Expenditures State Public Education Expenditures School-Age Population Local Public Education Expenditures State Higher Education Expenditures College-Age Population *Calculation inputs are total life sciences industry economic impacts, including total direct, indirect, and induced effects from the REMI PI+ economic model. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute November 2023 I gardner.utah.edu 32 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Workforce and Growth Trends by State Based on data availability, results in Section 3 include most—but not all—employee jobs in the life sciences industry. For consistency across states and over time, this analysis does not include self-employed workers or employee counts from handpicked life sciences companies outside of specified industry codes. Also, state-level employment data are incomplete (too low) in some instances due to disclosure protocols for company-reported job counts. However, Sections 1 and 2 are more comprehensive for Utah in 2022 and include self-employed workers, employees from industries with low employment levels, and employees from a list of handpicked companies outside of the updated NAICS industry definition. In its March 2023 research brief, the Gardner Institute introduced an updated definition for Utah’s life sciences industry (see Table 5.3).38 The industry definition for this analysis includes every company in 17 industries with the following six-digit codes from the 2022 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS): 325411–4, 334510, 334516–7, 339112–5, 423450, 423460, 424210, 541713–4, and 621511.39 For state comparisons in publications from January 2020 to January 2022, the Gardner Institute used a different (“legacy”) definition with 15 industries including NAICS 339116 and omitting NAICS 333314, 424210, and 541713–4.40 Compared with the previous (“legacy”) definition, the three new industry codes in the updated definition made up 24.7% Table 5.3: Updated and Legacy Life Sciences Industry Definitions for State Comparisons (Component Industries with 100% of Companies Counted as Life Sciences; Employee Jobs in 2022)1 Definition3 Code NAICS Industry Title 2 2 Legacy Updated Utah Jobs Number4 U.S. Jobs Share5 Number Share5 325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing n n 2,282 6.0% 41,109 2.2% 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing n n 5,112 13.4% 227,403 12.0% 325413 In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing n n ND ND 31,972 1.7% 325414 Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing n n ND ND 43,796 2.3% 334510 Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing n n 669 1.7% 76,291 4.0% 334516 Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing n n 208 0.5% 48,163 2.5% 334517 Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing n n 1,771 4.6% 14,293 0.8% 339112 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing n n 8,986 23.5% 142,614 7.6% 339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing n n 1,337 3.5% 106,065 5.6% 339114 Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing n n ND ND 16,455 0.9% 339115 Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing n n ND ND 24,088 1.3% 339116 Dental Laboratories n 1,207 3.2% 44,783 2.4% 423450 Medical, Dental, and Hospital Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers n n 2,594 6.8% 298,153 15.8% 423460 Ophthalmic Goods Merchant Wholesalers n n 139 0.4% 22,576 1.2% 424210 Drugs and Druggists’ Sundries Merchant Wholesalers n 3,625 9.5% 253,623 13.4% 541713 Research and Development in Nanotechnology n 2,282 6.0% 25,294 1.3% 541714 Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology) n 3,544 9.3% 279,886 14.8% 621511 Medical Laboratories n Total – Legacy Life Sciences Definition (15 NAICS Industries) n n Total – Updated Life Sciences Definition (17 NAICS Industries) n 5,734 15.0% 236,987 12.5% 30,039 78.5% 1,374,748 72.8% 38,283 100.0% 1,888,768 100.0% NAICS = North American Industry Classification System (2022 version) ND = Not disclosed (employment not reported for industries with too few companies and/or jobs) NA = Not applicable (shares omitted for dental laboratories, which is not part of the updated definition) Notes: 1. Employment includes full- and part-time employee jobs at life sciences companies. These data do not include self-employed workers. 2. Six-digit codes match industry titles for the most disaggregated NAICS industries available. These NAICS industries are components or sub-industries within the life sciences industry (or sector). 3. In January 2023, the Gardner Institute adopted an updated definition for Utah’s life sciences industry. The Gardner Institute used its legacy definition for state comparisons in publications from August 2018 through January 2022. 4. A Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) disclosure protocol results in incomplete state-level employment data for Utah and other states. For four industries where the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported zero Utah employee jobs in 2022, the Utah Department of Workforce Services reported nonzero employment ranges and identified 10 or fewer establishments per industry. An establishment is a business entity or location; companies may have more than one in-state establishment. Total Utah employment for the four industries was 1,612 to 3,278 jobs in 2022 (4.2% to 8.6% of the life sciences industry total under the updated definition). These amounts included 41 to 102 jobs at five establishments in NAICS 325413, 509 to 1,024 jobs at six establishments in NAICS 325414 (with one establishment accounting for 95% to 99% of industry employment), 1,036 to 2,090 jobs at 10 establishments in NAICS 339114 (with one establishment accounting for 92% to 98% of industry employment), and 26 to 62 jobs at three establishments in NAICS 339115. QCEW data would also be under-reported in similar circumstances in other states. Treating amounts that are not disclosed as zero is a methodology limitation. The QCEW offers the most detailed employment data available. 5. Shares are based on the updated definition, with denominators of 38,283 jobs (Utah) or 1,888,768 jobs (U.S.). Shares may not add exactly to 100% due to rounding. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute definitions based on a national literature review and input from BioUtah, BioHive, Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity, and Economic Development Corporation of Utah; for employment, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 33 gardner.utah.edu I November 2023 Table 5.4: Selected Results Comparing Legacy and Updated Definitions for the Life Sciences Industry Utah (Ranking Among Top 20 States) Item Legacy Definition U.S. Updated Definition Legacy Definition Updated Definition Life Sciences Job Growth Rate (Annual Percent Change in Employment): 10-Year Average, 2012 to 2022 4.4% (3rd) Annual Growth Rate Five-Year 2017 to 2022 3.7% (11th) 8.0% Average, 7.2% 6.7% 7.0% 6.4% Single-Year Growth, 2021 to 2022 -0.6% (20th) 6.0% Life Sciences Share of Workforce (Percent of Total Employee Jobs): 5.0% 4.0% 4.3% 3.7% 3.5% 3.4% 3.2% 2012 1.9% (1st) 4.0% 3.0% 2017 2.1% (1st) 2.0% 2022 2.1% (1st) 1.0% 5.1% (3rd) 2.7% 4.6% (9th) 3.9% 6.4% 6.4% -0.6% (20th) 2.3% (3rd) 3.7% 3.1% 2.5% (2nd) 3.5% 4.8% 6.8% 5.1% 5.8% 4.5% 1.0% 2.9% 0.9% 2.7% (3rd) 5.8% 5.1% 1.2% 3.4% 3.4% 1.2% 1.1% 1.5% Note:0.0% The Gardner Institute used its previous (“legacy”) definition for state comparisons in publications from August 2018 through January 2022. This report and a March 2023 research brief-1.0% feature an updated definition for Utah’s life sciences industry. Based on their 2022 life sciences employment, the same 20 states had the most jobs-under 0.6% either definition. For year- 1.3% workforce shares under the updated definition, by-year Utah and U.S. job growth rates under the updated definition, see Figures 3.2 and 3.3 and Table 3.1. For annual and state-by-state -2.0% 10-Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 see Figures 3.5 and 3.6. Average Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Life Sciences Industry Other Industries Figure 5.3: Utah Life Sciences Job Growth Rate Under Legacy and Updated Industry Definitions, 2013–2022 (Percent Change in Employment Since Previous Year; Utah’s Growth Rank Among 20 States with Most Life Sciences Jobs in 2022) 8.0% 7.0% 7.1% 7.2% (2nd) (2nd) 7.4% (3rd) 6.7% (3rd) Annual Growth Rate 6.0% 4.2% 4.0% (2nd) 3.4% 3.6% (6th) (2nd) (7th) 5.0% 4.0% 3.5% (1st) 3.0% 6.8% 6.3% (4th) (3rd) 6.4% 6.4% (11th) 5.9% (2nd) (9th) 6.4% (6th) 5.1% 4.4% (3rd) (3rd) 4.5% 4.0% (2nd) (2nd) 3.2% (13th) 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% -1.0% -0.6% -0.6% (20th) (20th) -2.0% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Legacy Definition 2019 Updated Definition 2020 2021 2022 10-Year Average Note: 10-year averages are compound average growth rates from 2012 to 2022. All growth rates are based on employee jobs at life sciences companies, without counting selfemployment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics did not disclose Utah employment in NAICS 325413–4 or 339114–5, except partially in 2017 and 2019. Nondisclosure indicates low employment and/or company counts. Due to NAICS system changes in 2017, life sciences employment starting that year may include nanotechnology jobs that are not for nanobiotechnology. Under this incomplete but substantial measure, Utah’s life sciences employment rose from 19,476 jobs in 2012 to 30,039 jobs in 2022 for the legacy definition; for the updated definition, industry employment rose from 23,327 jobs in 2012 to 38,283 jobs in 2022. For details on legacy and updated definitions, see Table 5.3. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages of Utah’s life sciences employment in 2022: NAICS 424210 (wholesale pharmaceuticals), 541713 (research and development in nanotechnology), and 541714 (research and development in biotechnology). The updated definition leaving out NAICS 339116 (dental laboratories) from the legacy definition affects what would be 3.2% of 2022 life sciences employment under the updated definition.41 The net effect of adding three NAICS codes and removing one was to increase 2022 life sciences employment by 21.5% in Utah and 27.2% in the U.S. Meanwhile, the Gardner Institute’s August 2018 life sciences report and the Institute’s chapters in the 2020 and 2022 Economic Report to the Governor used a more comprehensive version of the legacy definition.42 Single-year Utah-only results November 2023 I gardner.utah.edu in these three publications included many large, handpicked life sciences companies outside of the industries identified as 100% life sciences under the legacy definition. The three publications also included jobs for self-employed workers (life sciences proprietorships). Sections 1 and 2 feature a more comprehensive version of the expanded definition, also including handpicked companies and self-employment. The Gardner Institute is unable to replicate this level of detail for other states. To illustrate how the updated definition measures industry growth and specialization differently, Table 5.4 presents six key findings under the legacy definition as well. For example, Utah’s average job growth rate from 2017 to 2022 was 3.7% per year (11th among states) under the legacy definition 34 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Table 5.5: STEM Degrees Awarded in the Utah System of Higher Education, 2021 (Degree Completions) Program CIP Code Count Share Computer and Information Sciences and Support Services 11 2,016 24.2% Engineering 14 1,520 20.9% 18.7% Biological and Biomedical Sciences 26 1,065 Physical Sciences 40 439 5.6% Engineering/Engineering-Related Technologies/Technicians 15 408 3.9% Mathematics and Statistics 27 380 6.6% Psychology 42 367 4.1% Social Sciences 45 273 2.9% Business, Management, Marketing, and Related Support Services 52 235 2.5% Natural Resources and Conservation 03 209 2.3% Agricultural/Animal/Plant/Veterinary Science and Related Fields 01 168 2.1% Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies 30 89 1.2% Health Professions and Related Programs 51 83 1.2% Architecture and Related Services 04 71 0.7% Transportation and Materials Moving 49 68 0.9% Education 13 63 0.9% Science Technologies/Technicians 41 60 0.6% Communications Technologies/Technicians and Support Services 10 22 0.4% Homeland Security, Law Enforcement, Firefighting and Related Protective Services 43 17 0.2% Military Technologies and Applied Sciences 29 9 0.2% 7,562 100.0% Total CIP = Classification of Instructional Programs (2020) Note: Completions are for associate, bachelor’s, and graduate degrees from science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs at colleges and universities in the Utah System of Higher Education. STEM completions include all awards from programs in CIP codes 14, 26, 27, and 40, and awards only from certain programs in the 16 remaining CIP codes. This information for the 2021 academic year covers from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System; STEM program definitions from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, STEM Designated Degree Program List and 4.6% per year (9th among states) under the updated definition.43 Rankings are for the 20 states with the most life sciences employment in 2022. Industry workforce shares were consistently higher under the updated definition. For example, Utah’s specialization in life sciences in 2012 amounted to 1.9% of the workforce according to the legacy definition versus 2.3% under the updated definition. Figure 5.3 shows annual growth rates for both definitions. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes data on employee jobs at the state level. The data tally full- and parttime employee jobs by NAICS industry and calendar year. BLS data reflect company-reported average employment levels over 12 months. BLS data underreport life sciences employment somewhat for Utah and, likely, several other states. The BLS does not disclose annual employment at the state level for six-digit NAICS industries with low employment levels and few establishments. In 2022, non-disclosed data amounted to 4.2% to 8.6% of total employee jobs in Utah’s life sciences industry (see Table 5.3 note 4).44 The effects of BLS disclosure protocols are not limited to Utah among the 20 states with the largest life sciences employment. Underreporting is unevenly distributed: states with more life sciences jobs are less likely to have a disclosure I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM issue for a component NAICS industry. The nondisclosure issue is not present in custom data requests to the Utah Department of Workforce Services, the Gardner Institute source for in-depth reports, the present one and the inaugural one from August 2018.45 However, the more comprehensive treatment of those is not feasible for multiple states or prior years. Student Learning Analysis In the Utah System of Higher Education during the 2020–2021 academic year, STEM degrees were awarded across 68 majors or fields in 20 categories, as defined by two-digit codes under the 2020 Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP).46 The three most common categories saw more than 1,000 degree completions each, collectively 60.8% of STEM awards that year: computer and information sciences and support services (CIP code 11), engineering (14), and biological and biomedical sciences (26) (see Table 5.5). The U.S. Department of Education (ED) developed the CIP taxonomy of academic programs and updates it each decade. Colleges and universities assign CIP codes to their academic programs. For academic years prior to 2020, the authors used ED crosswalks to convert the STEM definition from the 2020 CIP to the 2010 and 2000 CIP taxonomies.47 35 gardner.utah.edu I November 2023 Endnotes 13. Economic impact percentages are provided for context and a sense of magnitude. Total economic impact percentages are not shares that add to a meaningful 100% with consistent units. Rather, each percentage represents a ratio of combined direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts (numerator) to total direct economic activity in Utah’s economy (denominator). Utah industries, including life sciences, are interdependent and have overlapping economic impacts. Statewide measures of direct economic activity in all industries would add to 100%. 14. We grouped standard NAICS industries to create the simplified industries in Figure 2.2 and Table 2.1. The real estate industry includes rental and leasing. The professional services industry includes scientific and technical services. The business services industry includes administrative and waste management services, as well as management of companies and enterprises. The education and health industry does not include public education (included in government) but does include social services. The transportation and utilities industry includes warehousing. The other services industry does not include public administration. The natural resources industry includes mining, as well as farm, forestry, fishing, and related activities. Leisure and hospitality includes arts, entertainment, and recreation as well as accommodation and food services. Government impacts were in state and local government, not federal. 15. Many company changes affect a state’s employment in a particular year, including layoffs, hiring, relocating, and industry reclassifications. Cytiva (formerly HyClone) is a Logan, Utah therapeutics and pharmaceutical company that reclassified from the industry “electromedical and electrotherapeutic apparatus manufacturing” (NAICS 334510) in 2021 to “biological product (except diagnostic) manufacturing” (NAICS 325414) in 2022. NAICS refers to the North American Industry Classification System under which companies self-identify by their primary business activity. Both industries are among the 17 NAICS industries included in the life sciences definition for this section, but the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) did not disclose Utah employment for NAICS 325414 either year. In 2021 and 2022, Cytiva maintained 500 to 999 Utah jobs according to the Utah Department of Workforce Services. 16. Annual venture capital totals are in current dollars, not adjusted for inflation, rounded to the nearest $0.1 billion. See TEConomy Partners (2022), pp. 31 and 34. 17. Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) published state-level workforce specialization findings based on location quotients, which measure the ratio of state industry employment shares to the national average. A state location quotient of 1.00 indicates life sciences specialization equal to the national average; a location quotient above 1.00 indicates above-average specialization in a state, and a location quotient below 1.00 indicates below-average specialization. For three life sciences segments, Utah’s location quotient was 1.20 or higher. The biosciences-related distribution segment’s location quotient was between 1.00 and 1.20. Precise Utah location quotients were not published. Gardner Institute and BIO segments for life sciences align well, but the Institute's "medical devices and diagnostics" segment is labeled "medical devices and equipment" in the BIO report, and the Institute's "therapeutics and pharmaceuticals" segment is simply "pharmaceuticals" to BIO. See TEConomy Partners. (2022). The U.S. Bioscience Industry: Fostering Innovation and Driving America’s Economy Forward. Biotechnology Innovation Organization. https://go.bio. org/rs/490-EHZ-999/images/TEConomy_BIO_2022_Report.pdf 18. Gardner Institute definitions for life sciences segments are similar to the 2022 TEConomy Partners report’s “bioscience subsector” definitions, and we discuss its findings using Gardner Institute segment names. TEConomy’s “medical devices and equipment” subsector has six of seven NAICS industries in the Gardner Institute’s “medical devices and diagnostics” segment, missing only “ophthalmic goods manufacturing” (NAICS 339115). TEConomy’s “research, testing, and medical laboratories” subsector includes all three NAICS industries in the Gardner Institute’s segment by the same name. However, the TEConomy study takes only part of the industry “research and development in nanotechnology” (NAICS 541713) for this subsector and adds parts of the industries “testing laboratories” (541380) and “research and development in the physical, engineering, and life sciences (except nanotechnology and biotechnology)” (541715). TEConomy’s “pharmaceuticals” subsector has the same definition as the Gardner Institute’s “therapeutics and pharmaceuticals” segment. TEConomy’s “bioscience-related distribution” subsector takes only part of two industries in the Gardner Institute’s “biosciences-related distribution” segment: “medical, dental, and hospital equipment and supplies merchant wholesalers (NAICS 423450) and “drugs and druggists’ sunrise merchant wholesalers” (424210); TEConomy omits the industry “ophthalmic goods merchant wholesalers” (423460), which is included in the Gardner Institute segment; and TEConomy includes part of the industry “farm supplies merchant wholesalers” (424910), which is not in the Gardner Institute’s “biosciences-related distribution.” Finally, TEConomy has a fifth subsector, “agriculture feedstock and industrial biosciences,” which is not part of the Gardner Institute’s life sciences industry definition. 19. Salt Lake City MSA’s employment location quotients in 2021 by segment were 5.22 for medical devices and equipment; 2.66 for research, testing, and medical labs; greater than 1.20 (not specified) for pharmaceuticals; and 1.07 for bioscience-related distribution (TEConomy Partners, 2022, pp. 46, 49). Total private employment in employee jobs in 2021 by MSA is from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics, State and Metro Area Employment, Hours, and Earnings at https://www.bls.gov/sae/data/. 20. Employment location quotients by segment in 2021 were 3.47 for Ogden-Clearfield MSA pharmaceuticals, 3.35 for Provo-Orem MSA pharmaceuticals, 2.60 for OgdenClearfield MSA medical devices and equipment, and 1.89 for Provo-Orem MSA bioscience-related distribution (TEConomy Partners, 2022, pp. 43, 46, 52). 1. See Pace, L. & Brandley, A. (2023, March). Utah’s Life Sciences Workforce and Industry Growth: 2012 to 2021. Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. https://gardner.utah.edu/wpcontent/uploads/LifeSciences-RB-Mar2023.pdf 2. See Pace, L. & Spolsdoff, J. (2018, August). Economic Impacts of Utah’s Life Sciences Industry. Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. https://bioutah.org/wp-content/ uploads/2019/08/Aug2018-LifeSciencesReport.pdf 3. NAICS definitions update every five years. This analysis relied on crosswalk information to move between the 2012 NAICS system and the 2017 NAICS system. The 2017 version created NAICS 541713, Research and Development in Nanotechnology, and NAICS 541714, Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology), from two 2012 NAICS industries—all of NAICS 541711, Research and Development in Biotechnology, and part of NAICS 541712, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology). Starting in 2022, Bureau of Labor Statistics data follow the 2022 NAICS system. 4. For publications from 2018 to 2022, the Gardner Institute used a different (“legacy”) definition with 15 industries including NAICS 339116 and omitting NAICS 333314, 424210, and 541713–4. See Pace, L. & Spolsdoff, J. (2018, August). Economic Impacts of Utah’s Life Sciences Industry. Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. https://bioutah. org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Aug2018-LifeSciencesReport.pdf; Pace, L. (2020, January). “Life Sciences Industry.” In Utah Economic Council (2020). Economic Report to the Governor: 2020 (pp. 149–152). Utah Economic Council, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. http://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ERG2020. pdf; Burton, L. & Pace, L. (2021, August). Growth Trends in Utah’s Life Sciences Industry. Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. https://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/LifeSciFS-Aug2021.pdf; and Pace, L. (2022, January). “Life Sciences.” In Utah Economic Council (2022). Economic Report to the Governor: 2022 (pp. 141–144). Utah Economic Council, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. https://gardner.utah.edu/wpcontent/uploads/ERG2022-Full.pdf 5. The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) is a source of administrative data based on required reporting by all employers with workers covered by state unemployment insurance. (The QCEW data also include federal government employees who are covered by the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees program. The Gardner Institute’s life sciences industry definition is within the private sector and does not include federal workers.) Employers with covered workers identify their establishments (separate entities or locations) and provide monthly job counts and aggregate wage amounts. The Utah Department of Workforce Services (DWS) administers the QCEW program in the state of Utah as part of the national QCEW program administered by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. DWS publishes QCEW data online, for example through its FirmFind tool. See Utah Department of Workforce Services. (n.d.). Utah Economic Data Viewer. https://jobs. utah.gov/jsp/utalmis/#/ (which includes a Glossary of Terms that lists QCEW) and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022, August). Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: About QCEW. https://www.bls.gov/cew/overview.htm. 6. In 2021, the Salt Lake City MSA’s medical devices and diagnostics employment of 10,990 jobs ranked seventh among 384 MSAs in the U.S., after San Francisco and San Diego and before Chicago and San Jose. Utah’s only other top 20 ranking, Salt Lake City’s research, testing, and medical laboratories industry group, was 13th, after the Durham-Chapel Hill and Baltimore-Columbia-Towson MSAs and before Houston and Miami. Utah’s other four MSAs were not ranked in 2022. See TEConomy Partners. (2022). The U.S. Bioscience Industry: Fostering Innovation and Driving America’s Economy Forward. Biotechnology Innovation Organization. https://go.bio.org/rs/490EHZ-999/images/TEConomy_BIO_2022_Report.pdf. While the Gardner Institute's life sciences industry segments align well with those in the Biotechnology Innovation Organization' report, the Gardner Institute's "medical devices and diagnostics" segment is labeled "medical devices and equipment" in the report. 7. Employee jobs and wages are reported by life sciences companies. The Gardner Institute estimated employee benefits, self-employment jobs, and proprietors’ income based on actual life sciences employee jobs and wages, as well as Utah data by industry for employee-compensation-to-wage ratios, self-employment rates, and proprietors’ income per worker. 8. In 2022, the life sciences industry directly provided 2.3% of Utah jobs, including company employees and self-employed workers (see Figure 2.1). The somewhat higher 2.8% share from the bottom row of Table 1.6 represents employees but no self-employment. The difference suggests that the life sciences industry provided proportionately fewer self-employment opportunities than did other industries in Utah. 9. Life sciences employment in 2022 was between 1 and 103 jobs in the 11 counties for which the Utah Department of Workforce Services was unable to disclose life sciences wages due to the small establishment count (one or two per county). 10. In Iron County, the life sciences share of employee jobs (0.22%) was higher than the industry’s share of wages in the county (0.18%). 11. Saratoga Springs and Springville had nine life sciences establishments each; Farmington and North Salt Lake had eight; Centerville and Holladay had seven; Clearfield had six; and Kamas had five. As for Utah municipalities with fewer than five life sciences establishments, 11 municipalities had four establishments, eight municipalities had three establishments, 17 municipalities had two establishments, and 29 municipalities had one establishment. 12. Based on adults living in Utah at the time of survey (2017-2021) who were employed in the previous five years. Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from the American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau; Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, University of Minnesota November 2023 I gardner.utah.edu 36 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 21. Logan MSA’s employment location quotients by segment in 2021 were 4.55 for medical devices and equipment and 1.26 for research, testing, and medical labs (TEConomy Partners, 2022, pp. 46, 49). 22. Details about which academic programs are defined as STEM are available in Section 5 under Student Learning Analysis. 23. The student learning subsection documents associate, bachelor’s, and graduate degrees awarded by eight public colleges and universities in the Utah System of Higher Education (USHE). The results do not include private institutions or technical colleges. Among Utah’s private institutions, Brigham Young University, Western Governors University, and Westminster University award significant numbers of STEM degrees. Eight USHE technical colleges and multiple private institutions in Utah offer certificate programs and training in fields essential to life sciences research, manufacturing, and business operations. 24. Due to rounding, differences between years for STEM shares of all degree completions in Table 4.2 may not exactly match percentage point changes for colleges and universities in this paragraph. 25. FY 2022 percentages are by award type calculated from USAspending.gov data. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding reported by USAspending was 98.2% of the FY 2022 total reported directly by NIH, near the five-year average of 98.6% for FY 2018 to FY 2022. See USAspending.gov. (2023, June). Spending by Time. https:// www.usaspending.gov/search 26. Section 4 described nine NIH institutes with more than $50 million (up to $212.5 million) each in grants and other Utah awards from FY 2018 to FY 2022. An additional 10 institutes and centers with at least $10 million in Utah awards during these years provided another 16.2% of all NIH funding in Utah. The additional institutes and centers address aging; deafness and other communication disorders; biomedical imaging and bioengineering; mental health, translational sciences for diagnostics and therapeutics; the dissemination of biomedical science information; arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin disorders; genomics; complementary and integrative health interventions; and dental and craniofacial diseases and disorders. Similar information about health applications was not available for 9.0% of Utah NIH funding awarded from FY 2018 to FY 2022. For information on the 27 institutes and centers that make up NIH and fund biomedical and behavioral research, training, and education, see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2023, July 12). List of Institutes and Centers. National Institutes of Health. https://www.nih.gov/ institutes-nih/list-institutes-centers. Data on NIH funding by institute and center are from USAspending.gov. 27. In February and March 2023, the Gardner Institute requested data on life sciences innovation from Brigham Young University, the University of Utah, and Utah State University. The dialogue and follow-up with these universities continued through August 2023. They are the only universities in the state with long-standing doctoral programs and high levels of research activity. Starting in 2020 and 2021, Weber State University and Westminster University also began awarding doctoral degrees, although none were in STEM fields. While Brigham Young University’s technology transfer office is supportive of this study, its staff was unable to provide the requested data before publication. 28. See American Council on Education. (2021). Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. https:// carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/institutions/ 29. Section 4 includes nearly all life sciences innovation at the University of Utah. PIVOT Center data updates are ongoing for previous years. University of Utah data the authors received in June and July 2023 for Table 4.4, Figure 4.6, and invention disclosures in Figure 4.7 represent 96.6% of all 827 life sciences patents issued from 2018 to 2022, as recorded through September 21, 2023. Likewise, data coverage shares for life sciences invention disclosures, license agreements, and startups are likely very large. Meanwhile, patent data for Figure 4.7 received September 7, 2023 covers 99.8% of the 827 patents issued in life sciences. 30. During the academic years 2018 to 2022 at Utah State University, 78.9% of license agreements (15) were in digital health, with the remaining 21.1% (4) in biotechnology. The only life sciences business startup during these years was in biotechnology. Detailed categorization for patents, licensing, and startups was not available for the University of Utah. 31. U.S. shares exclude patent awards for the categories “plants” and “agricultural chemicals.” During the calendar years 2018 through 2021, five categories accounted for the remaining 18.4% of patent awards for life sciences inventions in any setting, research university or elsewhere: microbiology and enzymes (7.6%), bioinformatics and health IT (3.8%), biological sampling and analysis (3.8%), genetics (3.1%), and biopolymers (0.1%). See TEConomy Partners. (2022). The U.S. Bioscience Industry: Fostering Innovation and Driving America’s Economy Forward. Biotechnology Innovation Organization. https://go.bio.org/rs/490-EHZ-999/images/TEConomy_ BIO_2022_Report.pdf 32. See Pace, L. & Brandley, A. (2023, March). Utah’s Life Sciences Workforce and Industry Growth: 2012 to 2021. Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. https://gardner.utah.edu/ wp-content/uploads/LifeSciences-RB-Mar2023.pdf 33. See Cambia Grove. (2020). Health Care Innovation Landscape Report: Utah. Retrieved June 2020. https://www.cambiahealth.com/news-and-stories/resources; Economic Development Corporation of Utah. (2023, June). Life Sciences in Utah: FY23–24. EDCUtah industry profile. https://www.edcutah.org/research/research-main; TEConomy Partners (2022); California Life Sciences. (2021). Sector Report 2021. https://info.califesciences.org/hubfs/Sector%20Report_FINAL.pdf; TEConomy Partners (2022, April). Essential: The Impact of the Healthcare and Life Sciences Sector in Indiana. https://biocrossroads.com/2021-indiana-life-sciences-capital-report-2/; MassBio. (2022). Industry Snapshot. Massachusetts Biotechnology Council. https:// I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 37 www.massbio.org/industry-snapshot/; Ohio Life Sciences Foundation. (2022, November). The Ohio Life Sciences Report. https://www.bioohio.com/ohio/ report-download/; TEConomy Partners (2021, February). Evidence & Opportunity: 2020 Impact of Life Sciences in North Carolina. North Carolina Biotechnology Center. https://www.ncbiotech.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/NCBiotech%20 Evidence%20%26%20Opportunity%202020%20-%20vFinal_0.pdf Ruggles, S., Flood, S., Goeken, R., Sobek, M., Brockman, D., Cooper, G., Richards, S., & Schouweiler, M. (2023). IPUMS USA: Version 13.0 American Community Survey, 5-Year Sample, 2017 to 2021. University of Minnesota. https://usa.ipums.org For titles and descriptions of NAICS industries with four or six digits, see U.S. Census Bureau. (2023, August). North American Industry Classification System: 2022 NAICS. https://www.census.gov/naics/?58967?yearbck=2022 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022, February). Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/oes/topics.htm#stem This import substitution logic would generally not apply to an analysis of the economic impact to a state of a single company with many in-state competitors, since in-state buyers could readily find alternatives without buying from outside the state. See Pace and Brandley (2023). In January 2023, the Gardner Institute introduced an earlier version of the updated definition that omitted NAICS 541713, Research and Development in Nanotechnology, and included NAICS 333314, Optical Instrument and Lens Manufacturing (see Brandley and Pace, 2023). Further analysis and industry dialogue indicated that NAICS 541713 was almost entirely nanobiotechnology in Utah as of 2021, though perhaps not in some other states. Meanwhile, NAICS 333314 had fewer than 25 jobs in 2021 and did not crosswalk intact from the 2017 NAICS system into the 2022 NAICS system. NAICS definitions update every five years. This analysis relied on crosswalk information to move between the 2012, 2017, and 2022 NAICS systems. The 2017 version created NAICS 541713, Research and Development in Nanotechnology, and NAICS 541714, Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology), from two 2012 NAICS industries—all of NAICS 541711, Research and Development in Biotechnology, and part of NAICS 541712, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology). The 2022 NAICS system did not involve noteworthy changes in any of the 17 NAICS industries in the updated definition for life sciences. See Pace, L. (2020, January). “Life Sciences Industry.” In Utah Economic Council. (2020). Economic Report to the Governor: 2020 (pp. 149–152). Utah Economic Council, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. http://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/ uploads/ERG2020.pdf; Burton, L. & Pace, L. (2021, August). Growth Trends in Utah’s Life Sciences Industry. Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. https://gardner.utah.edu/ wp-content/uploads/LifeSci-FS-Aug2021.pdf; and Pace, L. (2022, January). “Life Sciences.” In Utah Economic Council. (2022). Economic Report to the Governor: 2022 (pp. 141–144). Utah Economic Council, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. https://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ERG2022-Full.pdf The value of 3.0% is offered as a ratio, since NAICS 339116 from the legacy definition is not included in the denominator of the implied employment fraction for 2021. The ratio was calculated as Utah employee jobs at dental laboratory companies divided by Utah employee jobs at companies in 17 other NAICS codes under the updated life sciences definition. See Pace and Spolsdoff (2018); Pace (2020); Pace (2022). Multi-year average growth rates represent state trends in life sciences industry employment more clearly than single-year growth rates. As states' annual job growth in the life sciences industry are volatile (see Section 3 and endnote 15), so state rankings based on these growth rates are noisy. From 2013 to 2022 in the largest 20 states by 2022 life sciences employment, 14 states had a top-three annual growth rate for at least one year, 14 states spent at least one year ranked in the bottom three, and 11 states met both criteria. Utah Department of Workforce Services. (2023, March). Firm Find. September 2022 dataset. https://jobs.utah.gov/jsp/firmfind/ See Pace and Spolsdoff (2018). See U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2022, January 21). DHS STEM Designated Degree Program List. https://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/ stemList2022.pdf See National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). The Classification of Instructional Programs: Crosswalk 2000-2010. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/ ipeds/cipcode/resources.aspx?y=55 and National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). The Classification of Instructional Programs: Crosswalk 2010-2020. https://nces. ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/resources.aspx?y=56 gardner.utah.edu I November 2023 Partners in the Community The following individuals and entities help support the research mission of the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. Legacy Partners The Gardner Company Christian and Marie Gardner Family Intermountain Healthcare Clark and Christine Ivory Foundation KSL and Deseret News Larry H. & Gail Miller Family Foundation Mountain America Credit Union Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake County University of Utah Health Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity WCF Insurance Zions Bank Executive Partners Mark and Karen Bouchard Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Advisory Board Conveners Michael O. Leavitt Mitt Romney Board Scott Anderson, Co-Chair Gail Miller, Co-Chair Doug Anderson Deborah Bayle Roger Boyer Michelle Camacho Sophia M. DiCaro Cameron Diehl Lisa Eccles Spencer P. Eccles Christian Gardner Kem C. Gardner Kimberly Gardner Natalie Gochnour Brandy Grace Jeremy Hafen Rachel Hayes Clark Ivory Mike S. Leavitt Derek Miller Ann Millner Leadership Team Natalie Gochnour, Associate Dean and Director Jennifer Robinson, Chief of Staff Mallory Bateman, Director of Demographic Research Phil Dean, Chief Economist and Senior Research Fellow Shelley Kruger, Accounting and Finance Manager Colleen Larson, Administrative Manager Nate Lloyd, Director of Economic Research Dianne Meppen, Director of Community Research Laura Summers, Director of Industry Research Nicholas Thiriot, Communications Director James A. Wood, Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow Staff Clyde Companies Eric Albers, Public Policy Analyst Samantha Ball, Senior Research Associate Parker Banta, Public Policy Analyst Melanie Beagley, Public Policy Analyst Preston Brightwell, Dignity Index Field Director Andrea Thomas Brandley, Senior Education Analyst Kara Ann Byrne, Senior Research Associate Mike Christensen, Scholar-in-Residence Nate Christensen, Research Economist Dejan Eskic, Senior Research Fellow and Scholar Emily Harris, Senior Demographer Michael T. Hogue, Senior Research Statistician Mike Hollingshaus, Senior Demographer Thomas Holst, Senior Energy Analyst Madeleine Jones, Dignity Index Field Director Sustaining Partners Dominion Energy Staker Parson Materials and Construction Wells Fargo Governor Spencer Cox Speaker Brad Wilson Senate President Stuart Adams Representative Angela Romero Senator Luz Escamilla Mayor Jenny Wilson Mayor Erin Mendenhall Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Staff and Advisors The Boyer Company Salt Lake Chamber Ex Officio (invited) Sterling Nielsen Jason Perry Ray Pickup Gary B. Porter Taylor Randall Jill Remington Love Brad Rencher Josh Romney Charles W. Sorenson James Lee Sorenson Vicki Varela Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute I Jennifer Leaver, Senior Tourism Analyst Levi Pace, Senior Research Economist Praopan Pratoomchat, Senior Research Economist Heidi Prior, Public Policy Analyst Natalie Roney, Research Economist Shannon Simonsen, Research Coordinator Paul Springer, Senior Graphic Designer Faculty Advisors Matt Burbank, College of Social and Behavioral Science Elena Patel, David Eccles School of Business Nathan Seegert, David Eccles School of Business Senior Advisors Jonathan Ball, Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst Silvia Castro, Suazo Business Center Gary Cornia, Marriott School of Business Wes Curtis, Community-at-Large John C. Downen, Camoin Associates Dan Griffiths, Community-at-Large Emma Houston, University of Utah Beth Jarosz, Population Reference Bureau Darin Mellott, CBRE Pamela S. Perlich, University of Utah Chris Redgrave, Community-at-Large Wesley Smith, Northbound Strategy Juliette Tennert, Community-at-Large 411 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu (EC) LifeSciences Nov2023