Building a Bioscience Workforce: The Southeast Versus the Vanguard States

Abstract

The biotechnology industry is extraordinarily concentrated: five states account for nearly half of all biotechnology firms. California accounts for almost a quarter of all firms while Massachusetts accounts for just over one-tenth of all firms. Viewing the biotechnology industry as a leading sector for creating high-quality growth, many states have initiated public policies aimed at growing the industry at home and capturing a greater share of the national pie. In a comparative analysis with these two vanguard states, we examine public strategies initiated during the last two decades to promote the development of the biotech industry in three states in the Southeast: Florida, Georgia and North Carolina. Biotechnicians represent the largest number of workers in this industry, hold the greatest promise for geographic diffusion throughout the Southeast, and constitute a largely unexamined sector. The extent to which workforce-training strategies are successful typically depends on clustering and network building with industry leaders.

Full text

%XLOGLQJD%LRVFLHQFH:RUNIRUFH7KH6RXWKHDVW9HUVXV
WKH9DQJXDUG6WDWHV
1DQFH\*UHHQ/HLJK6XVDQ0:DOFRWW
Southeastern Geographer, Volume 42, Number 2, November 2002,
pp. 262-273 (Article)
3XEOLVKHGE\7KH8QLYHUVLW\RI1RUWK&DUROLQD3UHVV
DOI: 10.1353/sgo.2002.0023
For additional information about this article
Access provided by University of North Carolina at Greensboro (19 Feb 2015 18:35 GMT)
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sgo/summary/v042/42.2.leigh.html

Southeastern
Geographer
Vol.
XXXXII,
No.
2,
November
2002,
pp.
262-273
BUILDING
A
BIOSCIENCE
WORKFORCE:
THE
SOUTHEAST
VERSUS
THE
VANGUARD
STATES1
Nancey
Green
Leigh
and
Susan
M.
Walcott
The
biotechnology
industry
is
extraordinarily
concentrated:
five
states
account
for
nearly
half
of
all
biotechnology
firms.
California
accounts
for
almost
a
quarter
of
all
firms
while
Massachusetts
accounts
for
just
over
one-tenth
of
all
firms.
Viewing
the
biotechnology
industry
as
a
leading
sector
for
creating
high-quality
growth,
many
states
have
initiated
public
policies
aimed
at
growing
the
industry
at
home
and
capturing
a
greater
share
of
the
national
pie.
In
a
comparative
analysis
with
these
two
vanguard
states,
we
examine
public
strategies
initiated
during
the
last
two
decades
to
pro-
mote
the
development
of
the
biotech
industry
in
three
states
in
the
Southeast:
Florida,
Georgia
and
North
Carolina.
Biotechnicians
represent
the
largest
number
of
workers
in
this
industry,
hold
the
greatest
promise
for
geographic
diffusion
throughout
the
Southeast,
and
constitute
a
largely
unex-
amined
sector.
The
extent
to
which
workforce-training
strategies
are
successful
typically
depends
on
clustering
and
network
building
with
industry
leaders.
Key
words:
bioscience,
network
creation,
public
policy.
INTRODUCTION.
Economic
development
entities
at
a
variety
of
scales,
from
municipal
to
national
governments,
seek
to
attract
and
promote
the
development
of
industries
involved
in
the
biosciences
(especially
biotechnology)
due
to
the
high
profit
multiples
of
this
sector
and
promise
for
future development.
This
study
exam-
ines
two
aspects
of
the
bioscience
industry:
the
development
of
the
technician
work-
force
as
a
supporting
link
to
the
higher
paid
R&D-related
occupations,
and
the
locational
link
to
high-innovation
areas.
A
report
by
a
leading
industry
accounting
firm
estimated
that
the
1999
biotech-
nology
portion
of
this
industry
represented
151,000
jobs,
double
the
number
from
six
years
earlier.
This
portion
also
generated
$47
billion
in
revenues
(Ernst
&
Young,
2000).
In
addition,
for
every
two
jobs
created
in
biotechnology,
one
indirect
job
is
also
created.
Finally,
the
industry
is
extraordinarily
concentrated,
with
the
top
five
states
accounting
for
nearly
half
of
all
biotechnology
firms.
The
definition
of
"biosciences"
employed
here
includes
the
medical
and
agricultural
activities
typically
found
in
definitions
of
biotechnology
and
life
sci-
ences
industry
(cf.,
Batteile,
2002),
as
well
as
industrial
and
environmental
activi-
ties
that
use
cellular
and
molecular
processes
for
new
product
development
and
problem-solving
approaches.
Thus,
the
biosciences
sector
contains
the
following:
research
and
development;
testing
of
biological
processes
for
human,
agricultural,
Dr.
Leigh
is
an
Associate
Professor
of
City
and
Regional
Planning
at
Georgia
Tech,
Atlanta,
GA
30332-0155.
E-mail:
nancey.leigh@arch.gatech.edu.
Dr.
Walcott
is
an
Associate
Professor
of
Geography
at
Georgia
State
University,
Atlanta,
GA
30303-3083.
E-mail:
gegsmw@langate.gsu.edu.

THE
SOUTHEAST
VERSUS
THE
VANGUARD
STATES
263
-a
CO
CO
?
o
¦
Medical
Technicians
D
Life
Scientists
State
Fig.
1.
Biological
Science
Occupations
Workforce,
2000.
Source:
Created
from
Bio-Link
data,
March
3,
2002.
environmental,
and
industrial
applications;
medical
device
manufacturers;
pharma-
ceutical
firms;
medical
laboratories,
centers,
and
hospitals;
and
agricultural/
industrial
chemicals
and
research
and
testing.
Further,
this
sectoral
classification
encompasses
a
broad
array
of
tools
and
diagnostic
industry
activity
for
the
delivery
and
development
of
biotech
processes
and
products.
Already
broad
in
scope,
the
biosciences
industry
will
become
even
more
encompassing
as
it
provides
processes
and
products
for
human,
plant,
animal,
and
industrial
applications
that
are
expected
to
generate
exponential
growth
(Ernst
and
Young,
2000).
Most
geographic
examinations
of
bioscience
company clusters
have
focused
on
activities
ranging
from
studies
of
workers'
skill
level
through
studies
of
the
geog-
raphy
of
innovation
and
innovation
diffusion
(Anselin,
1997;
Audretsch
and
Feldman,
1996;
Hall
and
Bagchi-Sen,
2001;
Prevezer,
1998).
By
far
the
largest
number
of
jobs
in
this
sector,
however,
occurs
at
the
level
of
technicians
where
there
is
a
great
and
growing
need
for
more
employees
(Fig.
1).
While the
industry's
future
growth
is
contingent
upon
a
sufficient
supply
of
these
technicians,
state
develop-
ment
efforts
to
date
have
overemphasized
the
attraction
of
key
scientists,
entrepre-
neurs,
and
venture
capitalists
and
neglected
the
development
of
the
critical
bioscience
technician
labor
force.
This
study
begins
to
address
a
gap
in
both
academic
research
and
sectoral
development
studies
by
surveying
and
assessing
the
vocational
training
programs
for
biosciences
technicians
in
five
states.
Since
California
and
Massachusetts
are
the
vanguard
locations
for
biotechnology
companies,
we
examine
their
biosciences
vocational
training
programs
to
assess
whether
they
are
also
leaders
in
this
area
of

264
LEIGH
AND
WALCOTT
workforce
development.
We
then
examine
three
states
in
the
Southeast
that
have
been
actively
attempting
to
capture
the
growing
biotechnology
industry
through
their
higher
education
and
economic
development
institutions.
The
three
states,
Florida,
Georgia,
and
North
Carolina,
are
the
leading
locations
for
life
science
com-
panies
in
the
Southeast
(Ernst
and
Young,
2001).
However,
these
three
states'
share
of
the
biotechnology
industry
amounts
to
just
over
7%,
while
California
has
nearly
20%
and
Massachusetts
10%
of
the
U.S.
industry
(Table
1).
Our
research
explores
the extent
to
which
these
states
emphasize
the
development
of
the
technician
labor
force
as
part
of
their
overall
effort
to
capture
a
greater
share
of
the
biosciences
industry.
Training
for
biosciences
technician
jobs
is
typically
obtained
at
community
col-
leges
or
vocational
education
institutes
(Bio-Link,
2002).
Specific
jobs
for
which
the
technician
labor
force
is
needed
are
listed
below:
Bioinformatics
Technician
Biologist
cDNA
Library
Coordinator
Cell
Culture
Technician
Laboratory
Technician
(radiologic,
health
information,
physical
therapist,
den-
tal,
animal
health,
etc.)
Lot
Review
Coordinator
Manufacturing
Operator
Process
Development
Technician
Process
Supervisor
Protein
Purification
Technician
Quality
Control
Technician/
Analyst
Research
Technician/Associate/Assistant
Senior
Production
Assistant
1
Sequencing
Technician
Validation
Consultant
Geographers
and
economic
development
planners
frequently
examine
"clus-
ters"
of
companies
performing
related
functions
in
the
same
industry
(e.g.,
bio-
sciences)
in
the
same
geographical
area,
often
at
the
metropolitan
regional
scale
(Waits,
2000).
In
the
biosciences,
proximity
to
the
scientific
base
of
research
and
development
provides
the
greatest
attractions
for
related
companies,
explaining
the
prominence
of
California
and
Massachusetts
(Prevezer,
1998).
In
line
with
the
"relational"
or
"cultural
turn"
in
economic
geography
(Barnes
and
Gertler,
1999;
Thrift,
2000),
we
look
for
significant
differences
in
each
community
college
pro-
gram
and
geographic
region
based
on
personal
leadership
as
well
as
structural
frameworks
and
locational
environmental
factors
(Markusen,
2001).

THE
SOUTHEAST
VERSUS
THE
VANGUARD
STATES
265
TABLE
1
FIRMS
ENGAGED
IN
BIOTECH
BY
STATE3
Number
of
Percent
of
Rank
State
Biotechs
Total
(%)
Firms
in
State
Non-
biotech
firms
engaged
in
Biotech
Percent
of
total
(%)
All
Firms
engaged
in
Biotech
Percent
of
U.S.
(%)
1
California
237
22.8
90
14.3
327
19.0
2
Massachusetts
114
11.0
48
7.6
162
9.7
3
Maryland
81
7.8
37
5.9
118
7.1
4
New
Jersey
57
5.5
52
8.3
109
6.5
5
Pennsylvania
59
5.7
35
5.6
94
5.6
6
New
York
57
5.5
32
5.1
89
5.3
7
North
Carolina
35
3.4
35
5.6
70
4.2
8
Illinois
37
3.6
27
4.3
64
3.8
8
Texas
37
3.6
21
3.3
58
3.5
10
Washington
39
3.7
8
1.3
47
2.8
11
Florida
23
2.2
16
2.5
39
2.3
12
Minnesota
23
2.2
15
2.4
38
2.3
13
Connecticut
15
1.4
19
3.0
34
2.0
13
Ohio
15
1.4
19
3.0
34
2.0
15
Virginia
16
1.5
15
2.4
31
1.9
16
Wisconsin
18
1.7
12
1.9
30
1.8
17
Missouri
15
1.4
13
2.1
28
1.7
18
Michigan
14
1.3
9
1.4
23
1.4
19
Indiana
12
1.2
10
1.6
22
1.3
20
Iowa
11
1.1
9
1.4
20
1.2
21
Maine
14
1.3
6
1.0
20
1.2
21
Tennessee
7
0.7
12
1.9
19
1.1
23
Colorado
9
0.9
9
1.4
18
1.1
24
Kansas
6
0.6
10
1.6
16
1.0
25
Alabama
10
1.0
4
0.6
14
0.8
25
Georgia
7
0.7
7
1.1
14
0.8
»Parent
and
holding
companies
are
excluded
METHODOLOGY.
This
study
incorporates
secondary
data
from
multistate
studies
conducted
by
several
organizations.
These
include
the
Economic
Development
Research
Program
of
the
Georgia
Institute
of
Technology
(which
completed
a
multi-
state
study
of
biotechnology
in
2001);
Bio-Link
(the
major organization
directing

266
LEIGH
AND
WALCOTT
TABLE
2
LOCATIONS
OF
SURVEYED
BIOSCIENCE
PROGRAMS
IN
COMMUNITY
COLLEGES
State
School
City
Setting
California
Moorpark
College
Moorpark
Hinterland
Southwestern
Community
College
Chula
Vista
Bioscience
base
Skyline
College
San
Bruno
Bioscience
base
Antelope
Valley
Community
College
Lancaster
Hinterland
San
Diego
Mesa
College
San
Diego
Bioscience
base
Contra
Costa
College
Contra
Costa
Bioscience
base
Indian
River
Community
College
Fort
Pierce
Hinterland
Seminole
Community
College/Lake
Brant-
Sanford/Lake
Hinterland
ley
Highschool
Mary
Miami-Dade
Community
College
Miami
Hinterland
Chattahoochee
Technical
Institute
Marietta
Bioscience
base
Athens
Technical
College
Athens
Bioscience
base
Springfield
Technical
Community
College
Springfield
Hinterland
Northeastern
University
Boston
Bioscience
base
Central
Cardolina
Community
College
Sanford
Bioscience
base
Carolina Guilford
Technical
Community
College
Jamestown
Bioscience
base
Piedmont
Community
College
Roxboro
Bioscience
base
Wake
Technical
Community
College
Raleigh
Bioscience
base
Vance-Granville
Community
College
Henderson
Bioscience
base
Alamance
Community
College
Graham
Bioscience
base
Florida
Georgia
Massa-
chusetts
North
Source:
www.bio-link.org.
medical
technology
education
programs
nationally
and
funded
by
the
National
Sci-
ence
Foundation);
Ernst
&
Young
(a
major
accounting
firm
specializing
in
life
sci-
ence
accounts);
BIO
(the
major
Biotechnology
Industry
Organization);
and
the
Battelle Memorial
Institute
(a
research
company).
This
study
also
includes
primary
data
collected
through
telephone
and
email
surveys
that
targeted
programs
in
cities
with
strong
local
universities
as
well
as
programs
in
peripheral
areas
in
the
five
states
we
selected
for
their
national
leadership
in
the
life
science
industry.
DATA.
In
Table
2,
we
list
the
19
community
colleges
with
biosciences
programs
that
were
surveyed
for
this
research.
In
choosing
which
of
the
community
colleges
to
survey
in
the
five
target
states,
we
sought,
where
possible,
to
study
bioscience
bases
and
hinterland
locations.
Bioscience-based
locations
contain
major
research
univer-
sities
and
prominent
bioscience
firm
presen
ce,
while
hinterland
locations
are

THE
SOUTHEAST
VERSUS
THE
VANGUARD
STATES
267
Fig.
2.
The
number
of
Bioscience
Associate
Degrees
granted
by State,
1999.
Source:
Created
from
Bio-Link
data,
March
3,
2002.
peripheral
to
the
key
productive
and
innovative
activity
of
the
industry,
reflecting
instead
the
delivery
area
of
a
statewide
community
college
system.
As
can
be
seen
in
Figure
2,
California
exceeds
by
more
than
fourfold
the
num-
ber
of
graduates
with
bioscience
associate
degrees
of
the
other
four
states.
This
fig-
ure
provides
the
number
of
graduates
in
all
bioscience
community
college
programs
in
our five
target
states,
not
just
those
of
the
programs
we
surveyed.
All
together,
it
shows
that
in
1999
there
were
less
than
700
graduates
obtaining
bioscience
associ-
ate
degrees.
However,
over
the
1990-2000
decade
associate
degrees
conferred
in
biological/life
science
increased
40%
while
those
in
health
sciences
increased
78%.
2
Thus,
it
seems
reasonable
to
expect
that
the
number
of
bioscience
associate
degree
graduates
will
grow
significantly
in
the
future.
This
statement
is
supported
by
occupational
projections
for
the
2000-2010
decade
that
indicate
bioscience-
related
technician
jobs
requiring
an
associate
degree
will
grow
at
or
above
the
national
average
of
15%
(Table
3).
In
fact,
two
bioscience-related
occupations
will
grow
at
significantly
higher
rates:
biological
technicians
(26.4%)
and
environmental
science
and
protection
technicians,
including
health
(24.5%).
Further,
as
Figure
1
shows,
the
medical
laboratory
technician
component
of
the
biosciences
occupa-
tional
categories
(78,910)
is
nearly double
that
of
the
scientist
category
(40,380).
As
the
industry
matures
and
production
expands,
we
would
expect
the ratio
of
techni-
cians
to
scientists
to
continue
growing.
California
stands
out
as
the
state
with
the
most
established
programs
and fund-
ing,
an
unsurprising
finding
given
the
leading
role
of
this
state
in
the
life
science
(and
particularly
bioscience)
industry
as
a
whole.
Out
of
1
1
0
community
colleges
in
California,
40
have
specific
programs
or
courses
in
bioscience,
18
have
fully
devel-
oped
program
offerings,
and
10
are
actively
developing
biosciences
offerings
(Johnston,
personal
communication,
January
28,
2002).
According
to
California

268
LEIGH
AND
WALCOTT
TABLE
3
AVERAGE
ANNUAL
U.S.
JOB
OPENINGS
DUE
TO
GROWTH
AND
NET
REPLACEMENT
NEEDS,
2000-2010
Total
2000-2010
employment
change
in
total
Education/training
Occupation
(000s)
employment
category
2000
2010
(000s)
Percent
Total,
all
occupations
145,594
167,754
22,160
15.2
N/A
Medical
and
clinical
laboratory
147
175
28
19
Associate's
degree
technicians
Chemical
technicians
73
84
11 15
Associate's
degree
Biological
technicians
41
52
11
16.4
Associate's
degree
Environmental
science
and
pro-
27
34
7
24.5
Associate's
degree
tection
technicians,
including
health
Agricultural
and
food
science
18
20
3
15.2
Associate's
degree
technicians
Source:
Derived
from
occupational
report
at:
http://www.bls.gov.
interview
evidence,
however,
funds
often
flow
into
sustaining
program
overhead,
rather
than
into
frontline
instructional
and
equipment
needs,
a
situation
that
leaves
local
community
colleges
to
scramble
on
their
own
for
additional
grants.
When
the
search
for
additional
funds
is
successful,
future
employers
such
as
large
local
indus-
tries
often
supply
them.
These
local
industries
are
seeking
to
meet
their
need
for
trained
technical
employees
with
specific
skill
sets
provided
by
the
community
col-
lege
programs
they
help
to
develop,
supply,
and
staff.
This
"untraded
interdepen-
dency"
of
local
college
programs
with
local
leading
bioscience
companies
presented
the
key
distinction
between
successful
bioscience
bases
and
less
flourish-
ing,
unpartnered
hinterland
programs.
Other
states
in
this
study
featured
far
fewer
colleges
with
similar
programs,
regardless
of
state
funds
set
aside
for
their
development.
The
two
programs
out
of
the
seven
offering
associate
degrees
that
we
surveyed
in
Massachusetts
illustrate
the
contrast
between
a
bioscience-based
and
hinterland
location.
The
program
at
North-
eastern
University
in
Boston
serves
students
who
already
have
jobs
in
the
field
and
seek
specialized
training
for
certificates.
The
Springfield
program,
located
in
west-
ern
Massachusetts,
experiences
a
50%
dropout
rate,
caters
to
mostly
nontraditional
students,
and
is
growing
slowly.
Georgia
has
only
two
biosciences
community
college
programs
in
the
state.
Like
Massachusetts,
these
programs
have
markedly
different
experiences
with
workforce
development
and
market
demand.
While
most
graduates
of
Chatta-

THE
SOUTHEAST
VERSUS
THE
VANGUARD
STATES
269
hoochee
Tech
Community
College
in
Marietta
(a
suburb
in
northern
Atlanta)
find
employment,
the
critical
shortage
of
workers
that
is
experienced
in
Athens,
home
of
the
University
of
Georgia,
does
not
exist.
The
Athens
Technical
College
program
director
noted
that
demand
may
soon
greatly
exceed
the
supply
of
trained
workers
as
local
biotech
manufacturing
companies
either
expand
(Merial),
or
progress
beyond
incubator
status.
In
anticipation,
the
community
college
has
stepped
up
stu-
dent
recruiting
efforts,
hired
a
representative
to
target
high
schools,
and
is
working
to
more
actively
engage
its
own
admissions
officers.
The
three
community
college
programs
examined
in
Florida
largely
served
area
hospitals
as
major
employers.
One
supported
programs
in
a
local
high
school,
whose
graduates
often
went
on
to
degrees
in
bioscience
beyond
the
associate
level
common
in
a
college
training
setting.
Graduates
of
the
other
two
programs
typically
obtained
employment
within
a
few
months
of
completion,
earning
salaries
in
the
mid-$20,000
to
low
$30,000
range.
As
in
the
other
states,
most
programs
offered
a
number
of
specialties,
as
previously
listed.
As
in
Georgia,
colleges
surveyed
in
Flor-
ida
represented
the
only
bioscience
technology
training
programs
in
the state
and
addressed
primarily
local
needs
rather
than
a
statewide
bioscience
development
strategy
as
was
the
case
for
California
and
for
North
Carolina.
North
Carolina
has
six
community
colleges
with
biosciences
training
programs,
and
they
are
all
affiliated
with
the
state's
Biotechnology
Center.
The
program
in
the
most
outlying
area
reported
problems
in
recruiting
students.
The
dean
of
the
college
attributed
this
difficulty
to
the
rural
nature
of
their
location
and
the
local
popula-
tion's
unfamiliarity
with
the
biosciences.
The
community
college
located
in
the
heart
of
the
well-known
Research
Triangle
Area
of
North
Carolina
(which
includes
the
cities
of
Raleigh,
Durham,
and
Chapel
Hill)
graduated
a
large
number
of
stu-
dents
over
the
past
15
years,
most
of
whom
are
still
employed
in
the
field.
The
pro-
gram
maintains
good
relations
with
flourishing
local
bioscience
companies.
The
state
of
North
Carolina
began
its
biotech
development
strategy
in
1987.
Developing
a
long-term,
complex
program
that
focused
on
results
20
years
into
the
future,
the
state's Biotech
Center
has
worked
hard
to
develop
a
broad
cultural
awareness
of
biotechnology.
As
part
of
its
strategy,
it
targeted
high
school
students,
educating
them
and
their
teachers
to
the
future
of
biotechnology.
By
2000,
the
Cen-
ter
estimated
it
had
trained
1
,000
teachers
who,
in
turn,
have
reached
460,000
high
school
students.
This
has
been
a
calculated
strategy
for
preparing
a
constituency
supportive
of
biotechnology.
The
Center
targeted
high
school
students
because
it
felt
it
would
be
easier
and
more
effective
to
educate
the
young,
and
it
was
this
age
that
would
need
to
support
and
be
involved
in
biotechnology
as
they
matured
(Burke,
personal
interview,
December
4,
2000).
The
experience
of
the
most
hinter-
land
bioscience
community
college
program
described
above,
however,
raises
the
question
of
whether
there
has
been
an
urban
bias
in
the
effectiveness
of
this
out-
reach
strategy.

270
LEIGH
AND
WALCOTT
THE
EFFECTIVENESS
OF
BIOSCIENCE
TECHNICIAN
TRAINING
PRO-
GRAMS.
Workforce
education
programs
were
most
successful
when
the
community
college
and
local
businesses
were
closely
allied,
working
together
to
develop
a
cur-
riculum
and
a
cadre
of
instructors
that
fit
current
industry
needs.
These
programs
were
correspondingly
least
successful
where
the
locality
was
less
informed
as
to
the
industry's
needs
for
allied
health
technical
workers.
Despite
great
differences
by
states
in
their
structural
programs
to
assist
bioscience
training,
participants
at
the
level
of
local
community
college
administration
felt
strongly
that
success
(measured
by
number
of
graduates
placed
as
well
as
enrollment
size
and
growth)
hinged
on
close
cooperation
of
program
developers
with
supportive
local
industry
leaders/
potential
employers.
Development
of
programmatically
sustaining
synergies
depended
on
personal
relationships
made
with companies
acting
out
of
both
loca-
tional
convenience
to
community
colleges
and
workforce
development
necessity.
Composition
of
the
students
in
programs
initially
featured
White
females,
but
became
more
diverse
over
time.
Some
colleges
reported
minority
program
composi-
tion
of
25
to
50%.
Southwestern
Community
College
in
Chula
Vista,
California,
for
example,
has
a
student
population
that
is
almost
entirely
Latino,
representing
not
only
the
region's
ethnic
composition,
but
also
the
notion
that
biotech
is
a
viable
pro-
fessional
track
for
underrepresented
labor
force
groups.
Major
challenges
for
successful
completion
of
the
bioscience
programs
arise
when
students
lack
baseline
academic
skills
in
core
competencies
(mathematics
and
science),
when
nontraditional
students
have
difficulty
managing
time
demands
with
family
and/or
job
responsibilities,
and
when
there
are
misperceptions
of
skills
required
by
both
students
(too
hard
or
too
easy)
and
programs
(lack
of
knowledge
as
to
industry
needs).
A
"snob
factor"
of
companies
seeking
to
hire
B.
S.
-degree
holders
who
soon
left
for
other
jobs
was
balanced
by
a
growing
recognition
of
the
need
for
a
broad
base
of
narrowly
trained
bioscience
technicians,
particularly
in
financially
strapped
hospi-
tals
as
well
as
flourishing
and
expanding
medical
companies.
Further,
as
one
Geor-
gia
bioscience
company
manager
indicated,
companies
may
be
overcoming
their
degree
of
snobbery
because
of
the
difficulty
of
retaining
such
hires
and
the
costs
associated
with
each
loss
(estimated
at
$
1
00,000
per
lost
employee)
(PyIe,
personal
interview,
January
23,
2002).
CONCLUSION.
California
earned
its
clearly
predominant
position
by
being
the
state
whose
academic
offerings
in
the
field
of
bioscience
technician
training
were
most
closely
linked
with
the
needs
of
the
industry
employing
its
graduates.
These
links
were
formed
through
tightly
knit
networks
with
local
potential
employers,
who
are
involved
with
workforce
training
to
an
unprecedented
extent.
This
potential
workforce
exhibits
a
variety
of
background
preparation
levels
and
demographic
rep-
resentations,
which
lends
itself
well
to
geographic
sites
throughout
a
state.
Other

THE
SOUTHEAST
VERSUS
THE
VANGUARD
STATES
271
states,
especially
Massachusetts,
exhibited
a
critical
difference
in
success
rates
of
training
between
base
and
hinterland
locations
relative
to
the
core
business
cluster.
In
contrast
to
North
Carolina,
the
other
two
southeastern
states
do
not
have
a
well-integrated
or
technician-targeted
workforce-training
program.
In
particular,
Florida's
program
is
focused
more
on
traditional
medical
technician
training.
While
Florida
runs
a
more
extensive
program
than
does
Georgia,
it
still
lacks
"lighthouse"
big
name
corporate
successes
for
industry
sponsors
as
in
California.
Neither
Florida
nor
Georgia's
programs
demonstrate
the
close
links
between
industry
and
the
train-
ing
institutions
that
California
has
demonstrated
are
critical
to
success.
North
Caro-
lina
and
California
were
also
the
only
states
to
target
high
school
students,
an
under-
recognized
labor
source
for
production
and
laboratories.
Economic
development
policy
recommendations
for
the
southeastern
states
include
the
following:
1)
Develop
a
comprehensive
picture
of
bioscience
industry
needs
that
specifi-
cally
incorporates
the
technical
workforce
base;
T)
Educate
the
public
and
constituency
(counselors,
students,
parents)
that
bio-
science
is
a
growing
and
viable
field;
3)
Market
the
bioscience
workforce
training
and
development
program
to
attract
more
industry
employers
with
the
supply
of
trained
workers
in
a
crit-
ical
growth
area;
4)
Improve
on
the
California
model
by
tying
funding
more
directly
to
service
delivery
by
providers
(community
college
programs)
and
having
fewer
administrative
layers,
thereby
holding
down
costs
and
increasing
return
on
investment;
5)
Spread
workforce
training
benefits
via
a
program
that
is
statewide,
and
that
recognizes
that
the
greatest
success
will
occur
when
it
is
paired
in
a
network
with
potential
employers,
as
in
California.
The
above
recommendations
should
be
undertaken
in
consultation
with
all
the
bioscience
stakeholders
—
state
and
regional
agencies,
community
college
and
sec-
ondary
school
systems,
and
bioscience
research
and
industry.
Doing
so
can
help
to
maximize
the
economic
development
potential
from
providing
the
necessary
techni-
cal
labor
force
of
an
increasingly
diffusing
and
growing
bioscience
industry.
NOTES
'The
authors
gratefully
acknowledge
the
research
assistance
of
Alex
Pearlstein,
masters
stu-
dent
in
Georgia
Tech's
City
and
Regional
Planning
Program,
and
Jennifer
Hibbert,
masters
student
in
geography
at
Georgia
State.
2This
excludes
dental
assistants,
nursing,
and
emergency
medical
programs
(NCES,
special
compilation,
February
2002).

272
LEIGH
AND
WALCOTT
LITERATURE
CITED
Anselin,
L.
1997.
"Local
Geographic
Spillovers
between
University
Research
and
High
Technology
Innovations,"
Journal
of
Urban
Economics,
Vol.
42,
pp.
422-448.
Audretsch,
D.
and
Feldman,
M.
P.
1996.
"R&D
Spillovers
and
the
Geography
of
Innovation
and
Production,"
American
Economic
Review,
Vol.
86,
pp.
630-640.
Barnes,
T.
and
Gertler,
M.
1999.
The
New
Industrial
Geography:
Regions,
Regulations,
Insti-
tutions
(London,
UK:
Routledge).
Battelle
Memorial
Institute
and
State
Science
and
Technology
Institute.
2002.
"State
Govern-
ment
Initiatives
in
Biotechnology
2001".
www.bio.org.
Bio-Link,
2002.
Educating
the
Biotechnology
Workforce,
http://www.bio-link.org/career-
TOC.htm,
January
29,
2002.
Accessed
February
26,
2002.
Burke,
Steven,
2000.
Personal
interview
with
Nancey
Green
Leigh,
December
4,
2000.
Ernst
&
Young.
May
2000.
"The
Economic
Contributions
of
the
Biotechnology
Industry
to
the
U.S.
Economy."
Ernst
&
Young.
Ernst
&
Young.
2001.
"Focus
on
Fundamentals:
The
Biotechnology
Report,
15th
Annual
Review."
Ernst
&
Young.
Hall,
L.
and
Bagchi-Sen,
S.
2001.
"An
Analysis
of
R&D,
Innovation
and
Business
Perfor-
mance
in
the
U.S.
Biotechnology
Industry,"
International
Journal
of
Biotechnology,
Vol.
3,
in
press.
Johnston,
W.
A.,
2002.
Personal
communication
with
Susan
Walcott,
January
28,
2002.
Leigh,
N.
G.,
Wilkins,
J.,
and
Riall,
W
B.
200
1
.
The
Development
Potential
of
Georgia
s
Bio-
technology
Industry,
Atlanta,
GA:
Georgia
Tech
Research
Corporation,
Center
for
Eco-
nomic
Development
Services.
Markusen,
A.
November
2,
2001.
"An
Actor-centered
Approach
to
Economic
Geographic
Change."
www.clarku.edu/leir/markusen.htm.
Prevezer,
M.
1998.
"Clustering
in
Biotechnology
in
the
USA."
In
G.
Swann,
M.
Prevezer,
and
D.
Stout,
eds.
The
Dynamics
of
Industrial
Clustering:
International
Comparisons
in
Computing
and
Biotechnology
(Oxford
UK:
Oxford
University
Press),
pp.
124-
193.
PyIe,
Joseph,
2002.
Personal
interview
with
Alex
Pearlstein,
January
23,
2002.
Thrift,
N.
2000.
"Pandora's
Box?
Cultural
Geographies
of
Economies."
In
The
Oxford
Hand-
book
of
Geography,
G.
Clark,
M.
R
Feldman,
and
M.
Gertler,
eds.,
(Oxford
UK:
Oxford
University
Press),
pp.
689-704.
Waits,
M.
2000.
"The
Added
Value
of
the
Industry
Cluster
Approach
to
Economic
Analysis,
Strategy
Development,
and
Service
Delivery,"
Economic
Development
Quarterly,
Vol.
14,
pp.
35-50.
APPENDIX
Community
College
Bioscience
Training
Programs
Survey
Questions
1.
What
are
the
prerequisites
for
admission
for
the
community
college's
current
biotechnology
program?
2.
What
is
the
cost
of
the
program?

THE
SOUTHEAST
VERSUS
THE
VANGUARD
STATES
273
3
.
Is
there
any
financial
aid
offered?
4.
What
percentage
of
students
are
accepted/declined?
5.
What
are
the
reasons
for
the
declines?
6.
What
type
of
degree
is
offered
-
certificate,
AAS,
direct-to-work
voucher?
7.
What
is
the
length
of
the
program
in
course
hours?
8.
What
is
the
core
curriculum
of
the
program?
9.
Is
a
particular
biotech
sector
like
agriculture,
industrial
or
medical
aimed
for?
10.
What
is
the
gender/racial
makeup
of
the
program?
1
1
.
What
is
the
makeup
of
the
students
who
drop
out
of
program?
12.
Has
there
been
a
change
in
the
program's
gender/racial
dynamics
over
time?
1
3
.
What
are
the
j
ob-training
aspects
of
the
program?
14.
Are
there
specific
companies
the
graduates
are
directed
toward?
15.
At
what
type
(name)
of
companies
have
graduates
been
hired?
16.
What
is
the
average
starting
salary
range,
if
known?
17.
What
percentage
of
graduates
are
successfully
placed
in
biotech-related
com-
panies?
a.
At
graduation?
b.
After
6
months?
c.
After
1
year?
18.
What
job-placement
assistance
does the
program
provide?
19.
When
was
the
program
started,
and
what
was
the
impetus?
20.
What
were
the
initial
funding/guidance
sources?
a.
Institutional,
nonprofit,
corporate?
b.
Economic
development
institute/initiative?
c.
If
yes,
is
this
assistance
ongoing?
2
1.
What
is
the
makeup
of
the
teacher
pool?
a.
City
college
professors?
b.
Biotech
practitioners?
c.
What
are
their
predominant
specialties?
22.
Regarding
the
community
college's
FUTURE/PROPOSED
programs,
are
there
plans
to
expand/change
the
current
biotechnology
program?
a.
For
example,
to
offer
a
direct-to-work
bioprocess
training
course,
or
a
cer-
tificate
program?
23.
Are
there
plans
to
upgrade
the
current
program?
24.
If
so,
will
monies
be
directed
toward
facilities
improvement,
adding
new
courses,
hiring
more
professors,
expanding
job
placement,
etc.?