Contract vs. Permanent Hiring in Life Sciences: 2024–2026 Trends and Strategy

Shift to flexibility: Across Europe and North America, there’s a pronounced shift toward contract and contingent staffing. Recruiters note life-sciences firms are “leaning more towards contract hiring, particularly for QA and QC roles” as they adapt to uncertainty. Panda observes contract hires outpacing permanent roles in 2025, as companies stay “runway conscious” and favour agility.

Many organisations now plan projects assuming a mix of FTEs and contractors (a hybrid workforce): permanent staff anchor core capabilities (compliance, leadership, continuous ops), while temporary experts handle project spikes. In other words, the question is less “Which is better?” and more “What mix supports our goals?”.

Innovation and skill scarcity: The sector is in need of talent, especially in digital/AI, advanced therapies (gene/cell) and regulatory affairs. These gaps are due to surging demand and limited pipelines of qualified workers. For example, 43% of pharma firms cite a shortage of digital/AI skills.

As a result, time-to-fill has jumped: Panda finds specialised roles now take ~68 days on average to fill. Recruiters warn that mid-career specialists (who combine technical and regulatory know-how) are toughest to find. Employers must therefore compete fiercely for talent, often offering pay 10–20% above market rates.

Regulatory and digital drivers. New regulations are creating staffing needs. EU rules (MDR/IVDR for medical devices, GDPR data requirements) and stricter quality/compliance standards drive demand for QA/RA specialists. Companies now seek more employees who can navigate these regulations.

Meanwhile, digital transformation is changing roles: AI and data expertise are now essential even in R&D and operations. Life sciences firms want “crossover” talent, e.g., computational biologists, data-savvy clinical managers. The bottom line: organisations must hire not only subject-matter experts, but also tech-enabled generalists who can adapt as scientific tools evolve.

Overcommitting to one model. A frequent error is defaulting to permanent or contract without analysis. For example, some companies hire a permanent engineer for a short-term validation project. When the project ends, the employee may leave in frustration, wasting the initial recruiting effort. Conversely, relying solely on contractors can decimate knowledge continuity: when a contractor leaves, institutional knowledge can walk out the door. As industry experts warn, “choosing the wrong approach can slow progress, increase costs, or introduce long-term risk.” In a field where delays cost (e.g. a one-day trial delay ≈$55K), such mistakes are expensive.

Knowledge gaps. Underestimating the need for internal knowledge transfer is common. Contractors often focus on deliverables rather than documentation; when no handover process is planned, teams scramble when the contract ends. We have seen projects stall because critical data or processes were never captured by permanent staff. Similarly, cultural cohesion suffers if teams rotate staff too quickly. Failure to build a core stable team can leave an organisation vulnerable, especially during audits or inspections that rely on historical context.

Underestimating speed vs cost trade-offs. Some companies use contract hires to save money, not realising that high turnover or frequent rehiring can inflate costs. Hiring managers need to calculate the total cost of project ownership. For instance, a consultant might save 30% on benefits but charge a 50% higher hourly rate. Without careful planning, “cheap” contractors can lead to multiple recruiting cycles and extended timelines. Alternatively, paying more upfront for a permanent hire can pay off if the role is long-lasting. The pitfall is neglecting these trade-offs; savvy leaders model scenarios to see which option truly minimises risk and expense.

Slow hiring processes. Ironically, when companies fear talent shortages, they sometimes lengthen their hiring process (more interviews, extra approvals), which only worsens the problem. A drawn-out recruitment means missing out on scarce candidates - a risk especially true in a <2% life-sciences unemployment market. Panda finds that using specialised recruiters can dramatically reduce average fill times. In short, inaction is often worse than making a model choice; companies must expedite decisions once the criteria are set.

To navigate these complexities, use a structured framework that ties each hiring decision to specific business outcomes. Below are key criteria (echoing industry best practices and the blog by Scientific Search):

Timeline and scope of the role: 

Ask: Is this an ongoing need or a finite project? If a role is tied to a short-term project or deadline (e.g., clinical trial ramp-up, site validation, regulatory submission), a contract or a defined Statement of Work is usually best. This provides immediate expertise and flexibility. If the need extends beyond 12–18 months or involves continuous operations (e.g., day-to-day QC, continuous process improvement), permanent hiring makes sense to build capability.

Specialised expertise vs. general capability: Determine if the work demands highly specialised skills. Contractors excel in niche tasks (AI-driven analytics, gene therapy assay development) that are sporadic by nature. For example, many companies contract validation experts during plant scale-up. In contrast, if the role is strategic and requires broad company knowledge or leadership, opt for perm. Permanent hires can be developed through training programs and grow into cross-functional team builders.

Knowledge retention needs: Roles requiring deep internal process knowledge or multi-team coordination benefit from permanent staff. Examples: QA Systems Managers, Regulatory Strategy Leads, or heads of Manufacturing. These people build institutional memory and mentor juniors. If the position is mainly executional with limited long-term footprint, a contract might suffice.

Risk tolerance and flexibility: Gauge your organisation’s risk profile. In uncertain periods (tight budgets, shifting pipeline), favour contract arrangements to limit long-term liability. Contracting lets you scale teams quickly and avoid heavy severance if plans change. However, if the business is in execution mode (stable funding, clear strategy), stability is a higher priority, and permanent hires reduce turnover and ramp-time risks. As one consultant notes, contracting surges when “there’s mass investment” but permanent roles stabilize when budgets are predictable.

Blended (Hybrid) models: In most cases, the optimal approach is a mix. For instance, many companies place a permanent manager at the helm (ensuring continuity) and staff the supporting roles with contractors. A practical example: hire a permanent Head of Quality, but use contract Quality Engineers for the first year of a new facility build. This “best of both worlds” model leverages stability and agility. The key is ongoing reassessment: as projects evolve or budgets settle, convert high-impact contractors into employees or bring in contractors for emerging gaps.

Each hiring decision should be explicitly linked to project outcomes and organisational goals. In practice, we recommend documenting a brief “role charter” before posting any job: define the expected deliverables, timeline, and metrics of success. Then apply the above criteria. This forces leaders to articulate whether speed or knowledge retention is the priority, and aligns the choice with long-term strategy rather than routine practice.

Time-to-hire and cycle metrics:

Recruitment timelines have stretched. Panda notes specialised roles now average ~78 days to fill in-house (vs ~60 days pre-2020). Huntress surveys and CBRE analytics indicate that even critical life-science positions can sit open for 3-4 months. Regional variations exist: high-cost locations like Switzerland often fill faster (thanks to deep pockets), whereas smaller markets may take longer.

Contractor rates by region:

Regional pay differences are stark. In Switzerland, for example, the very high cost of living and talent shortage mean contractors routinely command double the hourly rate of peers in the Netherlands. A Swiss RA specialist might bill €150-200/hour, whereas the same role in Belgium might go for €80-120/hr.

The Netherlands, buoyed by recent biotech funding hikes, sits in the middle: competitive but not Swiss-level. Belgium (Flanders) clusters around Dutch rates.

Regional hiring differences (NL/BE/CH focus): 

Panda’s experience in our key markets confirms these nuances. The Dutch biotech sector saw a 10%+ funding rise in 2024, leading to hiring surges in R&D and manufacturing (often on contract during ramp-ups). Belgium’s life science hub (anchored by large pharma) shows steady demand in commercial, med affairs and regulatory roles, with salaries rising modestly.

Switzerland’s scene is unique: the market is smaller but deeper-pocketed; we routinely negotiate prime rates for contractors (especially in GLP, precision manufacturing and niche analytics). Across all these markets, the mandatory conclusion is the same: roles tied to expansion or compliance (new plant, new product launch, new regulation) rely heavily on contractors for near-term execution, while core leadership roles remain permanent.

Align with business outcomes: For every hiring need, start by defining what success looks like (project completion, FDA approval, product launch, etc.). Then choose perm vs contract as the lever to achieve that. Check assumptions: if the outcome window is <1 year, the contract is usually better; if building a lasting capability, hire permanently.

Plan for flexibility: As many analysis reports recommend, don’t view hiring as static. Build contingency into budgets for temp support, and keep talent pools (internal and external) warm. The ability to pivot - swapping contract for perm or vice versa - will be a key competitive advantage as conditions shift.

Invest in integration and transition: When using contractors, formalise knowledge transfer from day one. Assign shadowing or overlap periods with perm staff. When hiring permanently, accelerate onboarding with clear roadmaps and training to shorten time-to-productivity. These practices reduce the common “ramp risk” that plagues hiring decisions.

Leverage market data: Continually update your benchmarks on salaries and contract rates (especially in high-cost areas like CH or specialised domains like AI). Use recent industry surveys to set realistic offers. Know local nuances: what’s normal in NL may be too low for DE, and vice versa. Transparent, competitive offers drive faster responses and reduce time-to-hire.

Communicate candidly: With candidates and internal stakeholders, be upfront about contract length or perm expectations. Early clarity on career path (even for short-term roles) helps manage morale and retention.

Market leaders will be those who treat hiring strategy as a dynamic, outcome-driven process. As we’ve shown, the distinction between contract and permanent is not an end in itself but a strategic choice to be made per role. By using the decision framework above and staying informed by current data, companies can build teams that balance agility and continuity.

In life sciences, talent is the spark of innovation. Choosing the right hiring model for each spark ensures that organisational momentum continues unabated, projects stay on schedule, and innovation thrives.