Area lacks potent punch in bioscience - or does it?

BYLINE: CHUCK SODER

Here's a study in how studies sometimes are in need of study.

Battelle Memorial Institute, the big research think tank in Columbus, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a coalition of bioscience companies and groups, recently issued a report titled, ``Biosciences in the United States: A Regional Perspective.'' It was a study on biosciences employment across the country, and its findings were not flattering to the Cleveland area, which has been striving for years to fashion itself as a biotech mecca.

According to the report, the Cleveland market in 2004 employed about 8,500 people in bioscience jobs outside certain large institutions. That figure put the area - defined in the report as ``Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor'' - well outside the top 25 metropolitan areas as ranked by bioscience employment.

Indeed, Cleveland fell 1,800 employees short of the Atlanta area, which ranked 25th in the report. Cities below the top 25 were not ranked.

The study shows the Cleveland area has a long way to go before becoming a national biosciences power, said Walt Plosila, vice president in charge of Battelle's national consulting arm, the Technology Partnership Practice.

``This doesn't happen overnight,'' said Mr. Plosila, who is based in Cleveland and helped prepare the study.

But not so fast, say a couple technology advocates for the region and the state who maintain that the study undercounts the number of bioscience employees in Cleveland because of flaws in its methodology.

Baiju Shah, president of Bio-Enterprise Corp., a nonprofit in Cleveland that promotes the development of biotech companies in Northeast Ohio, criticized the study because it didn't include researchers employed by hospitals such as the Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals, Cleveland's two biggest employers with more than 38,000 employees in total.

The report did not include jobs at bioscience divisions of research hospitals, academic health centers and other research-driven medical institutions because the study identified biosciences employers using the North American Industry Classification System. That system, which the federal government uses to classify employers into sectors, cannot isolate smaller employment components of larger organizations.

As a result, employees at research hospitals and academic medical centers often fall under hospital NAICS codes.

`Just not very good data'

The study also could be excluding employees who work in research divisions of large businesses that choose a NAICS code completely unrelated to the biosciences, said Tony Dennis, president and CEO of Omeris Inc., a nonprofit group that promotes bioscience research and education across Ohio.

``Walt's using the best data available - it's just not very good data,'' Mr. Dennis said in referring to Battelle's Mr. Plosila.

The study itself acknowledges that it may have some ``data gaps'' due to the ``the dynamic and broad nature of biosciences'' and because of its national scope.

Regardless, the study states that categorizing employers by NAICS codes is still the best method for measuring biosciences employment on a national scale. Mr. Plosila defends it as well.

``We have to use standards that apply to the whole country,'' said Mr. Plosila, who works out of Battelle's Cleveland office, near Cleveland Hopkins Airport.

Mr. Shah said the study would be more valuable if it counted jobs indirectly produced by biosciences in each region. He said Cleveland probably would rank higher if the study included how biosciences have influenced employment in health care services and information technology companies, for example.

``There's no question that this is one of the booming health care economies in the country,'' Mr. Shah said.

Mr. Plosila said a lack of federal statistics makes it too difficult to count on a national level the number of jobs indirectly created by bioscience companies. Besides, he said, any flaws in the study affect employment figures in every city, so Cleveland's ranking might not change much even if the study was perfect.

The New York City metropolitan area ranked first with 110,600 biosciences employees. The Los Angeles area ranked second with 66,200.