Biopharma professionals can find themselves out of jobs when employers want to bring staff back into the office, as recently seen at biotech EMD Serono and Exelixis.
For some biotech and pharma employees, job security depends on whether their employers decide their positions are best done at the office. Staff at EMD Serono and Exelixis have seen that firsthand.
Last month, 70 research and development (R&D) employees at EMD were told to choose between hybrid jobs or no jobs. Last year, Exelixis laid off 130 people companywide, including 33 remote employees, with plans to reopen many affected positions as on-site roles.
Bringing workers back to the office at EMD, Exelixis
In July, EMD Serono, the U.S. healthcare unit of Germany’s Merck KGaA, submitted a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act notice regarding R&D staff who report to the EMD Serono Research & Development Institute site in Billerica, Massachusetts. Effective in early September, those employees must work in the office at least three days per week. As a result, 70 remote staff living more than 50 miles away were given three options: commute to work from their residence, relocate closer to the institute with company-provided relocation support or resign and receive severance offers.
In an emailed response to BioSpace, an EMD spokesperson declined to provide details on relocation support, severance offers and how many employees have resigned.
The company is requiring the R&D function to be on-site at least three days per week to promote collaboration, according to the spokesperson.
“At EMD Serono, we believe that an in-person environment fosters the rich, interactive and often serendipitous nature of sporadic conversation, which remains a cornerstone for deep scientific discovery and growth,” they said. “By bringing our R&D colleagues together onsite, we can build a collaborative culture that better fosters scientific breakthroughs.”
Return to office was also a factor in an Exelixis workforce cut. In August 2025, the biotech closed its King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, facility and let go of 130 employees companywide. The layoffs included 33 people who worked from home but reported to California-based managers, according to Fierce Biotech.
Exelixis had hired a significant number of employees—including many remote workers—during and after the COVID-19 pandemic and was restructuring to focus largely on its Alameda, California, operations, according to a statement provided to BioSpace. The biotech expected to reopen many affected positions as new roles at its Alameda headquarters.
Return-to-office decisions that resulted in workforce reductions have been noted in an ongoing BioSpace survey collecting layoff stories. One respondent shared that her employer told her during her maternity leave that it had eliminated her remote position, but she could apply for it once they opened it as an on-site role.
Another survey participant wrote, “We suspected for months it was going to come because the new owners didn’t like remote people and contractors. It didn’t matter we all reached more than the set goals, it didn’t matter they themselves worked from other states, the essential people needed to be onsite.”
Are remote workers at higher risk?
In discussing employer views on where employees work, Cameron Barrus, senior director of RPO and project management at PharmaLogics Recruiting, a global life sciences recruiting firm, noted that while she sees companies hire for remote positions, there’s been a big move toward hybrid arrangements. Many companies, she added, want to see staff on site a few days a week.
“We’re seeing things shift a bit because I think that on-site presence and the team-building aspect is really important for a lot of companies,” Barrus said, echoing the reasoning provided by EMD. “We’re getting back to that.”
While some may see those situations as a sign that remote biopharma employees are at higher risk for layoffs than their on-site counterparts, that may be more perception than fact. Reasons unrelated to work location, including program cuts, cost reductions and loss of drug exclusivity, can also drive workforce reductions. For example:
- In January, Japan-based Takeda laid off 243 remote employees across its U.S. operations, the Boston Business Journal reported. A company spokesperson told the media outlet the cuts were part of a strategic decision to help the business navigate the upcoming loss of exclusivity for Trintellix, a major depressive disorder drug.
- In June 2025, Switzerland-based ADC Therapeutics announced it was cutting around 30% of its global workforce to help trim costs and extend its cash runway into 2028. It’s likely many affected staff worked from home, as about half of ADC’s employees were remote, according to the company’s 2024 annual report.
Cases such as those are why Barrus told BioSpace job security can be an issue for all biopharma employees, not just those working remotely.
“I think in this industry, there’s a risk no matter what because you don’t know what the future looks like,” Barrus said. “A company could go and get acquired, and then things shift because of that, whether you’re on site or working remotely.”
Barrus told BioSpace she has not seen that remote staff are more likely to be laid off or had job candidates tell her they feel it’s risky to work from home. She has, however, had some candidates ask if a prospective employer might change its remote work policy. That concern isn’t unreasonable given the recent development at EMD Serono.
