When asked about the overall condition of the science and technology park sector during a period of obvious turbulence, Carol Stewart radiated optimism. She said that despite various market challenges and the additional federal tumult, the market has, and will remain, as follows: “robust, driven by the continuous demand for innovation and technology development.”
That overarching demand is the product of what Stewart, President & CEO of UA Tech Parks, feels is created based on the often long relationships that have long served as the sector’s backbone.
Citing the latest International Association of Science Parks and Areas of Innovation Global Survey, she said SciTech parks “are evolving to focus more on sustainability and strong relationships with universities, which are key drivers of success.” The 92-page document revealed that 93.7 percent have business incubators and 81.7 percent feature accelerators to support startups, while 75.4 percent promote specialization through clusters.
As for those core relationships, they’re evident, too: 80.2 percent of SciTech parks host research institutions and 73.8 percent collaborate with universities.
In the Know
Stewart offered another reason she feels the sector will remain strong. “The sector is also seeing a growing emphasis on knowledge-based companies, which ensures long-term sustainability,” she said―with that optimism offered despite “the challenges posed by federal cuts and firings. Still, we’re committed to ensuring our communities of innovation continue to thrive.”
Because that’s what they do. “We help startup businesses scale and adapt to economic shifts,” said Stewart. “We offer tools and insights to help leaders remain steady, strategic and solutions-focused in the face of economic and political challenges.”
While uncertainty abounds in today’s economy, “There continues to be interest in Innovation Districts from universities, hospitals and local governments,” said Brian Darmody, chief strategy officer at the Washington, D.C.-area office of the Tuscon, Ariz.-based Association of University Research Parks, who noted that they’re not all in the traditional markets like Baltimore-Washington, Boston, the Bay Area, the Research Triangle, etc. “So more are being built.”
Darmody also remains optimistic despite the federal funding cuts at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies until the fiscal 2026 federal budget is finalized later this year. “It’s difficult to finance new buildings,” he said, “when you don’t know the rules of the road.”
“And if there’s one thing developers hate,” said Darmody, “its uncertainty.”
So hopefully the rules of the road will become clearer in the coming months “and maybe avenues to financing will improve when we find out which agencies will be funded and at what level,” he said. “For instance, we expect that defense-related activities will continue to be funded at a similar level to what they have been in recent years.”
But until then, it’ll be tricky. “If new deals concern nuclear energy and semiconductor research, that’s O.K.,” said Darmody, “but wind power does not seem to be supported by this administration, for instance.”
Concerning pharma research that falls under the current NIH budget, “We’re under a continuing resolution, so the funding is based on last year’s amount,” he said. “However, some NIH grants have been rescinded this year, and we don’t know what they’ll be for 2026. It’s very likely going to be a more constricted budget environment.”
Placemaking
Shifting the focus to the commercial real estate market, Matt Szuhaj concurred. “It used to be, ‘If you build it, they will come,’” said Szuhaj, vice president with Strategic Development Group, Oakland, Calif., “but now, it’s ‘What kind of community and resources are there for a company that’s looking to expand.’”
He noted such sites are “often popular with life science and technology companies, which have specific synergies.”
“So now, instead of taking a traditional approach, developers usually think of how to attract a certain company from a certain segment of the industry,” Szuhaj said. “Companies in SciTech are not [within] generic market segments, for instance. You have to envision it within a broader market opportunity focus.”
The other part of this location puzzle “is attracting investment from out of the area, where the space is available, and organically growing businesses that spin out of a local university, incubator or accelerator,” he said. “That market used to be especially directed toward academic hubs and tech transfers, because that’s where the information technology goes. Today, that’s tending to stay with the researcher.”
Since many communities “have created space for accelerators and incubators,” said Szuhaj, “I often wonder why they don’t use their libraries, which are already set up for collaboration. One thing that gets confusing is when folks use the term ‘technology’ in a generic fashion; you don’t really know if they create a product or do research.
“This question is not necessarily about an industry,” he said. “It’s more about a capability.”
People, Places, Products
In April, Dallas-based CBRE published a survey of wet lab incubators, which has led Matt Gardner and Mark Vito from the firm’s Chicago office to discuss what heats the geographic hotspots.
“When you look at biotech regions, the ecosystems have common ingredients, like colleges and vital incubators,” said Gardner, head of life sciences, Americas, “so we measure how they’re working for the early stage companies.”
When the survey results initially arrived at the end of 2024, the duo saw incubators that responded wanted to increase square footage and open in other markets. “There were many other positives on that note,” said Vito, senior manager of life sciences. “They offer synergies and much-needed space for companies as they grew and needed support.”
Noting the Emerging Tech Center in Baltimore as a prime example, the duo stressed that the basic business model goes back to the need for flexible space. “With the funding environment still constrained and money tight, the headwinds are ongoing and exits are tough,” he said. “I would argue those factors combine to increase the need for more funding and more flexibility.”
And tech startups are known for their more intensive research processes that often require more than equipment and supplies. “Software companies don’t have such barriers to entry, so if you’re company centers around the Internet of Things, batteries, biotech,” etc.―in other words, “deep tech”―you may need hardware,” he said, “to prove that big-ticket concepts work.”
Part of “the beauty of incubators,” said Gardner, “is that they offer scenarios for shared costs, so [residents] don’t have to reinvent wheels. Thus, they can save money for the accelerator stage or later in the game. Or perhaps even for survival.
“Early on,” he said, “they want people, places and products.”
Both noted that the key takeaways from the survey are that two to five years in an incubator is the target; then when the companies graduate, the incubators still track employments, funding and products created.
“I think we gleaned an interesting glimmer of hope from the survey,” said Gardner. “The respondents see the need to grow a footprint and number of locations. For the last forty years, the business model has not been set by the federal government, but by cities, counties, universities, nonprofits and corporations.”
“Incubator companies have a degree of autonomy already and this is critical element that garners strong support,” he said, “and they build up while corporations are looking for maturing startups to accentuate their offerings.”
Ecosystem Flow
The point about SciTech parks is that they can provide various, and sometimes all, of the elements, that are needed to complete the ecosystem that supports and drives innovation. Aaron Miscenich, executive director of bwtech@umbc in Baltimore, stressed their importance while discussing how to brace for the federal cuts.
“Today’s science parks are evolving into dynamic ecosystems that connect academia, industry and startups. However, recent changes to federal funding guidelines may slow research and infrastructure development, prompting a greater reliance on public-private partnerships and alternative funding models,” said Miscenich. “While the transition may take time, it also presents an opportunity: research and technology parks that adapt quickly and use their networks creatively will be best positioned to thrive.”
“The key,” he said, “will be maintaining environments that attract top talent and innovation, even in leaner times.”
Concerning demand for lab space and facilities, the new administration has unilaterally imposed a 15 percent overhead rate, “which is far less than the actual cost of research,” said Darmody. “That’s been put on hold since a number of universities sued to stop it and some judges have complied.”
“But back to my comment about uncertainly,” he said, “developers are wondering how the rules might change again and how can they line up investors in the face of more uncertainty.”
That uncertainty involves another headwind: the tariffs and their effect on international business.
“Scientists confer with other scientists, whether they’re working two offices over or two continents away,” Darmody said, as some of the tension caused by the tariffs and other policy issues, like competition with China, may reduce the scientific communication exchange. “Many of our SciTech parks in the U.S. attract foreign companies, which equates to direct investment from overseas operations.”
He thinks the market got a keener glimpse of what to expect at the recent U.S. Department of Commerce’s SelectUSA Investment Summit conference, which was held at the Gaylord National Harbor (adjacent to Washington, D.C.), and typically attracts approximately 5,000 attendees from 90 international markets.
“I would say that there was a sense of wariness at the conference, since the actual state of affairs was still in flux as the reduction of tariffs with U.K. was announced right before it started,” said Darmody. Then during the event, “the negotiations with China were also announced, so ‘watchful waiting’ is how I would characterize the mood.”
All told, he said the intent of the market has not wavered. “Clearly, universities and hospitals want SciTech facilities built,” he said, noting still more issues to address like higher interest rates, a volatile stock market and federal meddling.
“But on a bipartisan front,” said Darmody, “there is interest in making the U.S. more competitive with artificial intelligence, quantum and autonomous technologies (like cars), which are happening with companies large and small in our member parks. Those markets remain robust due to tech advances, but those advances come via federal research, which simulates private development.”
Spreading Out
Despite current challenges, the long-term outlook for science and tech parks remains positive.
“The impact [of funding cuts] will vary depending on the specific region and the availability of alternative funding sources,” said Stewart. “However, it’s important to note that some areas are thriving despite these challenges.”
On that note, Stewart recently conducted a comprehensive personal study with colleagues from her office and across North America, “and we’re on par with the national average for vacancy,” she said, “and doing far better than some of our colleagues in the university research & technology park industry.”
She also sees the sector continuing “to evolve towards more public/private integrated partnerships, which is a strong, sustainable model,” said Stewart. “Intellectual property can move across borders without tariffs, presenting opportunities for research parks to facilitate innovation-based global collaborations.”
Collaboration is also why those big meetings that attract many of the most educated minds exist.
“We’ll be in Boston for the BIO International Convention this summer, which is one of the biggest bio meetings in the world,” Darmody said, noting that AURP holds its annual conference during BIO. “Then in November, we’ll have our own event at the University of Nevada Las Vegas Research Park.”
Part of the message being heard at such gatherings is the need to expand, upwards and outward, too. “These facilities aren’t just in Boston, Silicon Valley and D.C.,” he said. “There’s a need for more SciTech parks in rural, suburban and urban areas across the U.S.”
