Between Q2 2022 and Q4 2023, the US biotech sector experienced its most severe funding contraction in over a decade. Venture capital investment in biotech declined approximately 40% from its 2021 peak. IPO windows effectively closed for clinical-stage companies without differentiated Phase 2 or later data. Public biotech market capitalizations declined by a median of 55% from their 2021 highs. The practical consequence for the people who worked in these companies was swift and severe: more than 18,000 life sciences professionals at the VP level and above were displaced through layoffs, company closures, or the quiet dissolution of programs that lost their funding.
This piece tracks where those professionals went, how the broader life sciences labor market absorbed them, and what the migration pattern means for the hiring cycle that is now underway as biotech funding recovers. Our analysis draws on placement data from 2022–2025, supplemented by tracking data on 340 senior life sciences professionals in our network who were displaced during the contraction and whose subsequent career moves we documented.
18,000+ professionals displaced
The 18,000+ figure requires context. Between mid-2022 and late 2023, more than 150 US biotech and pharmaceutical companies conducted layoffs ranging from targeted program reductions to full company shutdowns. The layoffs were concentrated in specific categories: pre-clinical and early-clinical companies that had raised capital in the 2020–2021 boom at valuations they could no longer sustain; companies whose pivotal trials failed and that lacked the capital to fund alternative programs; and companies that had expanded headcount aggressively during the boom and needed to right-size to a lower-funding environment.
The professional profile of the displaced talent was distinctive. Unlike technology layoffs, which disproportionately affected mid-level engineers and product managers, the biotech contraction displaced a significant number of senior and C-suite professionals whose companies ceased to exist entirely. A VP Clinical Operations at a pre-clinical company that runs out of capital doesn’t get laid off — the company dissolves. The distinction matters because these professionals weren’t being managed out for performance; they were casualties of capital markets dynamics that had nothing to do with their individual capabilities.
The emotional and professional impact of the contraction on displaced talent was significant. Several professionals in our tracking data described periods of 4 to 8 months of active job searching before landing — far longer than the typical 6-to-10-week transition that characterizes normal senior life sciences job changes. The extended search periods reflected both the reduced number of open positions (companies were contracting, not hiring) and a temporary oversupply of senior talent that depressed compensation and increased competition for available roles.
Where the talent migrated
Of the 340 displaced senior life sciences professionals we tracked through the contraction, the destinations broke down roughly as follows:
Big pharma (38%). The largest single destination. Pfizer, Merck, AbbVie, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, and other large pharmaceutical companies absorbed a significant share of displaced biotech talent, often into roles that were newly created or that had been difficult to fill during the boom when biotech companies were competing aggressively for the same candidates. The irony: many of these professionals had left big pharma for biotech during the 2020–2021 boom, drawn by equity upside and entrepreneurial culture. They returned to big pharma with biotech experience that made them more valuable than when they left, but at compensation packages that were as a rule 10% to 15% below what they had been earning at the peak.
CROs and life sciences services (22%). Contract research organizations and other life sciences services companies were the second-largest absorber of displaced talent. IQVIA, Labcorp Drug Development, PPD (Thermo Fisher), Parexel, and mid-sized CROs hired experienced clinical operations, regulatory, and medical affairs professionals who brought sponsor-side experience and relationships. For many displaced professionals, CRO roles represented a lateral move in terms of functional scope but a step down in perceived prestige — a trade-off that some embraced and others found difficult.
Medical devices and diagnostics (15%). A surprising destination that emerged clearly in our tracking data. Displaced biotech professionals — particularly those with regulatory affairs, quality assurance, and clinical trial management expertise — found strong demand in the medical device and diagnostics sector, which was growing while biotech contracted. The skills transfer is genuine: FDA regulatory processes, clinical study design, and quality system management are substantially similar across drugs and devices, though the specific regulatory pathways differ.
Consulting and advisory (12%). A meaningful minority of displaced professionals moved into consulting roles — some at established life sciences consulting firms (McKinsey, LEK, IQVIA consulting), others as independent advisors serving the same biotech companies that had laid them off. The consulting path was particularly common among C-suite professionals (CMOs, CSOs) who had sufficient professional networks to generate advisory engagements but were not ready to commit to another full-time operating role.
Remained in biotech (10%). Only about 10% of displaced professionals landed at other biotech companies during the contraction period itself. This low figure reflects the simple arithmetic of the downturn: when the entire sector is contracting, there are far fewer biotech positions opening than there are biotech professionals looking. The professionals who did find biotech-to-biotech transitions during the contraction tended to be those with the most specific and differentiated expertise — rare therapeutic-area depth, direct NDA filing experience, or established relationships with specific KOLs.
Left the industry (3%). A small but notable fraction of displaced professionals left life sciences entirely, moving into adjacent sectors (health technology, healthcare services, venture capital) or retiring earlier than planned. The attrition was concentrated among professionals over 55 who had been considering retirement and for whom the disruption accelerated the timeline.
The big pharma absorption
The migration of biotech talent into big pharma deserves detailed examination because it has structural implications for the recovery hiring cycle. Big pharma companies used the contraction as an opportunity to acquire experienced talent that had been out of reach during the boom. The talent they acquired brought specific advantages: experience building clinical programs from scratch, comfort with resource-constrained environments, and the entrepreneurial decision-making speed that characterizes biotech culture.
The compensation dynamics of the biotech-to-pharma migration were notable. Professionals who had been earning $380K to $450K in total comp at clinical-stage biotechs (with substantial equity upside that was now worthless) accepted big pharma roles at $420K to $520K in total comp — a modest cash increase that masked the loss of equity value. For professionals whose biotech equity had been worth $200K to $500K annually in paper value at peak, the transition to big pharma represented a significant real reduction in expected total compensation even though the guaranteed cash component increased.
CRO and medtech as landing zones
The CRO and medical device sectors played an underappreciated role in absorbing displaced biotech talent. Both sectors benefited from counter-cyclical dynamics: CROs saw increased demand as big pharma companies outsourced clinical operations, and medical device companies were executing on product pipelines that had been funded during a separate investment cycle.
For CROs, the influx of sponsor-side talent represented a windfall. Experienced clinical operations professionals who had managed trials as sponsors brought client-side perspective that improved CRO service delivery and client relationships. Several CRO leaders we spoke with described the 2022–2023 period as the best hiring market for senior talent they had experienced in a decade.
For medtech companies, the transferability of regulatory and quality skills from pharma/biotech was the key factor. A VP Quality who had managed FDA inspections and cGMP compliance at a biotech company could apply substantially the same expertise at a medical device company, with a learning curve primarily around the specific regulatory pathway (PMA, 510(k), De Novo) rather than the fundamental quality system principles.
What it means for the recovery cycle
As biotech funding recovers — venture capital investment in biotech increased 28% in 2024 compared to 2023, and the IPO market reopened selectively for companies with strong Phase 2+ data — the talent migration pattern of the contraction is creating specific dynamics in the recovery hiring market.
The talent is harder to pull back. Professionals who moved to big pharma, CROs, or medtech during the contraction have, in many cases, settled into roles they find satisfying. The guaranteed compensation, the institutional stability, and the reduced career risk of a large-company environment have genuine appeal after the volatility of the biotech bust. Biotech companies hiring in the recovery are finding that re-recruiting talent that left during the contraction requires not just competitive compensation but a genuinely differentiated equity story and clinical narrative.
Compensation expectations have recalibrated. Professionals who experienced the loss of biotech equity value during the contraction are, understandably, more skeptical of equity-heavy compensation packages. The "take a lower base for equity upside" pitch that worked during the 2020–2021 boom is meeting more resistance in the recovery. Companies that can offer a higher base salary floor while maintaining equity upside are winning talent over companies that rely primarily on equity to close compensation gaps.
The CRO and medtech sectors have become permanent competitors for talent. Before the contraction, biotech companies primarily competed with other biotechs and with big pharma for senior talent. The migration pattern has created a third competitive axis: CROs and medtech companies that now employ experienced biotech professionals and that would need to be outbid to attract them back. This expanded competitive landscape has increased the cost and complexity of senior biotech hiring in the recovery.
Lessons for life sciences careers
Three enduring lessons from the contraction and recovery for senior life sciences professionals:
Equity is not compensation until it is liquid. The most painful lesson of the contraction. Professionals who made career decisions based on the paper value of their biotech equity — accepting lower base salaries, turning down big pharma offers, staying at companies longer than they otherwise would have — learned that unvested and illiquid equity is a promissory note, not money. The appropriate framework for evaluating equity in career decisions is expected value under realistic assumptions, not face value at the last round.
Sector diversification is career risk management. Professionals whose entire career experience was in biotech found the contraction more disruptive than those who had worked across pharma, biotech, CRO, and medtech environments. Breadth of sector experience provides optionality during downturns and makes career transitions smoother when they become necessary.
Recruiter relationships are insurance, not transactions. The professionals who navigated the contraction most effectively were those who had maintained relationships with executive recruiters before the downturn. When companies dissolved and positions evaporated, having an established recruiter relationship meant immediate access to opportunities, informed market intelligence, and advocacy with potential employers. Building those relationships during a boom, when you don’t need them, is the investment; using them during a contraction is the return.
For context on current life sciences compensation dynamics, see our 2026 Life Sciences Executive Compensation Report and our analysis of the Philadelphia pharma corridor talent market.
This piece is authored by Victoria Ashford (Managing Partner) with contributions from Malcolm Sheffield on life sciences career tracking data and the Alden Search research team.