Biologics Safety Testing Market by Product Type (Instruments, Reagents & Kits, Services), Test Type (Adventitious Agent Detection, Bioburden Testing, Cell Line Authentication & Characterization), Application, End User - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The Biologics Safety Testing Market was valued at USD 6.43 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 7.30 billion in 2025, with a CAGR of 15.17%, reaching USD 19.92 billion by 2032.
Framing the imperative for rigorous biologics safety testing in an era of accelerating therapeutic innovation and elevated regulatory expectations
The biologics safety testing landscape sits at the intersection of scientific rigor, regulatory scrutiny, and operational complexity. Organizations developing biologic therapies must reconcile the need for accelerated development timelines with uncompromising safety standards, driving an intensified focus on robust analytical capability across laboratories, contract partners, and manufacturing sites. This introduction frames the essential challenges and imperatives facing stakeholders who are responsible for ensuring the integrity of biologic products from cell line selection through final release testing.
A convergent set of drivers - evolving regulatory expectations, technological advances in detection and analytics, and heightened public and payer scrutiny of product safety - has amplified the importance of a disciplined testing strategy. Consequently, leaders must evaluate not only technical performance but also data governance, supply chain resilience, and the capacity of their partners to deliver consistent quality under pressure. By situating safety testing within a broader risk management framework, organizations can prioritize investments that yield the greatest reduction in programmatic and patient risk while enabling continued innovation in therapeutic modalities.
How technological advances, regulatory refinement, and therapeutic complexity are reshaping testing strategies and supplier ecosystems in biologics safety
The landscape for biologics safety testing is undergoing transformative shifts driven by technological progress, shifting regulatory focus, and new modalities of therapeutic development. Advances in molecular detection methods, high-sensitivity assays, and automation are enabling earlier and more reliable identification of adventitious agents, host cell impurities, and contaminants, which in turn reduces downstream risk and supports more confident release decisions. As technology matures, integration of digital tools for data capture and analytics is also reshaping laboratory workflows and enabling more standardized, auditable processes.
Concurrently, the proliferation of complex modalities such as gene therapies, cell therapies, and multi-specific biologics is increasing the diversity of testing requirements and driving demand for specialized assays and characterization approaches. Regulators are responding with more prescriptive guidance on risk-based approaches and expectations for characterization, while inspectors emphasize traceability, method validation, and data integrity. At the same time, contract testing providers are expanding capabilities to meet developer needs, fostering a dynamic ecosystem in which partnerships, platform specialization, and geographic capability footprints become differentiators. Taken together, these shifts compel organizations to re-evaluate testing strategies, invest selectively in capabilities that future-proof programs, and cultivate stronger oversight over partners and suppliers.
Assessment of recent U.S. tariff changes and their operational implications for procurement, supplier qualification, and continuity of biologics safety testing
Recent tariff developments in the United States have introduced an extra layer of complexity for organizations that depend on global sourcing for reagents, instruments, and specialized services. Changes in import duties can affect procurement timing, supplier selection, and cost structures, prompting organizations to re-examine supply chain resilience and the geographic diversity of their vendor base. In some instances, firms have accelerated qualification of alternate suppliers in geographically diversified regions or adjusted inventory strategies to mitigate the impact of trade disruptions.
Beyond procurement, tariff shifts can influence decisions around where to site critical testing operations, how to structure contractual terms with contract research organizations and contract manufacturing organizations, and whether to pursue additional domestic capability for key assays. For leaders, the pragmatic response combines short-term operational adjustments with longer-term strategic planning: maintain transparent supplier engagement, strengthen demand planning, and evaluate opportunities to localize essential reagent and kit sourcing where doing so reduces risk and preserves continuity of testing programs. In parallel, organizations should track policy developments closely and incorporate tariff scenario planning into supplier risk assessments to ensure testing continuity under evolving trade conditions.
Integrated segmentation analysis revealing where product types, test modalities, applications, and end-user needs converge to shape testing priorities and capability gaps
A nuanced segmentation-driven view of the market reveals where capability gaps and opportunities intersect with product development needs. Considering products studied across Instruments, Reagents & Kits, and Services, decision-makers must weigh capital investment in instrumentation against the flexibility and outsourcing benefits offered by reagents and third-party testing services. Instruments deliver platform control and data continuity, reagents and kits enable standardized assay deployment, and services provide access to specialized expertise without long-term fixed costs.
When examining test types such as Adventitious Agent Detection, Bioburden Testing, Cell Line Authentication & Characterization, Endotoxin Testing, Mycoplasma Testing, Residual Host Cell Protein (HCP) Testing, and Sterility Testing, it becomes clear that each category demands distinct technical approaches and validation pathways. Adventitious agent detection and cell line characterization require high-sensitivity molecular tools and deep bioinformatics support, whereas endotoxin and mycoplasma testing are often driven by well-established compendial methods supplemented by rapid technologies that reduce time to result. Residual HCP testing and sterility assays pose distinct analytical challenges tied to matrix effects and method robustness.
Applications across Gene Therapy, Monoclonal Antibody Production, Recombinant Protein Therapeutics, Stem Cell Research, Tissue Engineering, and Vaccine Development impose divergent testing requirements that map to assay selection and regulatory expectations. Gene therapies demand specialized viral clearance and vector characterization strategies, monoclonal antibody programs focus on immunogenicity and impurity profiling, and vaccine development introduces scale and lot-release considerations that drive high-throughput testing needs. Across these applications, end users including Academic & Research Institutes, Contract Research Organizations (CROs), and Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology Companies operate with different priorities: academic settings emphasize exploratory methods and flexibility, CROs balance throughput with regulatory compliance for multiple clients, and industry sponsors prioritize scalability, traceability, and supply chain control. Understanding how these segmentation dimensions interact helps stakeholders prioritize investments in capabilities that align with their dominant use cases and regulatory commitments.
Comparative regional perspectives on regulatory emphasis, capability concentration, and supply chain localization shaping biologics testing across global markets
Regional dynamics materially influence the development and delivery of biologics safety testing services, driven by differences in regulatory frameworks, talent availability, and manufacturing footprints. In the Americas, established regulatory pathways and a mature biotech ecosystem support advanced assay adoption and scale-up of testing capacity, while the presence of major contract testing providers enables sponsors to outsource complex testing workflows with confidence. Investment in laboratory automation and digital data management is widespread, supporting higher throughput and greater adherence to data integrity expectations.
In Europe, Middle East & Africa, regulatory harmonization across many markets and a strong emphasis on compliance drive a focus on validated methods and cross-border collaboration. The region’s rich academic base also supplies specialized research capability that feeds into commercial testing services. Across Asia-Pacific, rapid expansion of biopharmaceutical manufacturing and strong government support for biotech innovation have increased demand for local testing capacity, prompting growth in both domestic service providers and regional subsidiaries of global laboratories. Taken together, these regional patterns suggest that strategy should account for the localization of supply chains, the availability of specialized skill sets, and differing regulatory emphasis to optimize where and how testing activities are performed.
How capability depth, service model flexibility, and strategic partnerships are defining competitive advantage among instrument, reagent, and service providers
Key industry participants are navigating a landscape that rewards technical depth, operational reliability, and flexible service models. Leading instrument manufacturers continue to invest in automation and connectivity to reduce operator variability and accelerate throughput, while providers of reagents and kits emphasize standardization and quality control to support reproducible results across laboratories. At the same time, service providers are expanding portfolios to include advanced molecular assays and data analytics capabilities that meet the evolving needs of complex modalities.
Strategic collaborations between sponsors and specialist laboratories have become more common, enabling access to niche expertise such as vector characterization or advanced host cell impurity assays without the need for in-house build-out. In parallel, some large sponsors are pursuing insourced options for critical assays to retain control over sensitive processes and to reduce dependence on single-source suppliers. Across the ecosystem, investment in quality systems, regulatory intelligence, and workforce development is a consistent differentiator, as firms that can demonstrate robust method validation, stringent data governance, and rapid responsiveness to regulatory inquiries are more likely to sustain long-term client relationships.
Actionable industry leadership priorities to strengthen assay consistency, supply resilience, and partner governance while advancing analytic capability
Industry leaders should adopt a pragmatic blend of capability investment, partnership governance, and supply chain risk management to navigate current pressures and future-proof operations. Prioritize harmonizing assay selection and data standards across internal and external laboratories to reduce variability and facilitate cross-study comparability. Strengthening method validation practices and enhancing data integrity protocols will reduce regulatory friction and accelerate release decisions while preserving patient safety.
In parallel, construct a supplier diversification strategy that balances the benefits of localized sourcing with the efficiencies of global suppliers. Engage in proactive contracting that codifies quality expectations, turnaround commitments, and contingency measures. Invest selectively in automation and digital integration where these technologies will materially shorten time to result or reduce operator-dependent variability. Finally, cultivate internal expertise in emerging modalities through focused hiring and targeted training, and formalize escalation pathways with partners so complex analytical issues receive rapid, expert attention. Taken together, these actions will reduce program risk and ensure testing capabilities remain aligned with evolving therapeutic and regulatory demands.
Overview of the mixed-method research approach combining stakeholder interviews, regulatory analysis, and comparative capability benchmarking to derive actionable insights
This research synthesized primary interviews with laboratory directors, quality leaders, and commercial development experts, combined with secondary analysis of regulatory guidance, technical literature, and publicly available corporate disclosures to build a comprehensive view of the testing landscape. The primary qualitative engagement emphasized operational pain points, vendor selection criteria, and areas where sponsors see the greatest need for technical innovation. Secondary sources were used to validate trends, clarify terminology, and map regulatory expectations across key jurisdictions.
Analytical approaches included comparative method mapping to identify where technologies supplant or complement compendial assays, supplier capability benchmarking to assess differentiation, and scenario analysis to evaluate supply chain responses to trade shifts. Throughout, emphasis was placed on identifying actionable insights rather than producing numeric forecasts. Quality control measures for the research included cross-validation of interview findings against documentary evidence and peer review by subject matter experts with experience in both laboratory operations and regulatory affairs.
Closing synthesis highlighting the strategic actions required to maintain safety assurance and operational resilience as biologic modalities and regulatory demands evolve
In sum, biologics safety testing sits at a critical inflection point where technological innovation, regulatory sophistication, and supply chain dynamics collectively shape development success. Organizations that align their testing strategies with evolving modality requirements, invest selectively in automation and data integrity, and manage supplier relationships with disciplined governance will be better positioned to mitigate risk and accelerate program milestones. Equally important is maintaining adaptive operational plans that account for trade policy shifts and regional capability variations, thereby preserving continuity of testing services under changing conditions.
As therapeutic complexity increases, test developers and sponsors must continue to prioritize robust characterization and traceable data practices to meet both regulatory expectations and patient safety imperatives. By translating the insights in this summary into targeted investments and governance changes, stakeholders can strengthen their assurance frameworks and support the reliable delivery of safe biologic therapies.
Please Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Framing the imperative for rigorous biologics safety testing in an era of accelerating therapeutic innovation and elevated regulatory expectations
The biologics safety testing landscape sits at the intersection of scientific rigor, regulatory scrutiny, and operational complexity. Organizations developing biologic therapies must reconcile the need for accelerated development timelines with uncompromising safety standards, driving an intensified focus on robust analytical capability across laboratories, contract partners, and manufacturing sites. This introduction frames the essential challenges and imperatives facing stakeholders who are responsible for ensuring the integrity of biologic products from cell line selection through final release testing.
A convergent set of drivers - evolving regulatory expectations, technological advances in detection and analytics, and heightened public and payer scrutiny of product safety - has amplified the importance of a disciplined testing strategy. Consequently, leaders must evaluate not only technical performance but also data governance, supply chain resilience, and the capacity of their partners to deliver consistent quality under pressure. By situating safety testing within a broader risk management framework, organizations can prioritize investments that yield the greatest reduction in programmatic and patient risk while enabling continued innovation in therapeutic modalities.
How technological advances, regulatory refinement, and therapeutic complexity are reshaping testing strategies and supplier ecosystems in biologics safety
The landscape for biologics safety testing is undergoing transformative shifts driven by technological progress, shifting regulatory focus, and new modalities of therapeutic development. Advances in molecular detection methods, high-sensitivity assays, and automation are enabling earlier and more reliable identification of adventitious agents, host cell impurities, and contaminants, which in turn reduces downstream risk and supports more confident release decisions. As technology matures, integration of digital tools for data capture and analytics is also reshaping laboratory workflows and enabling more standardized, auditable processes.
Concurrently, the proliferation of complex modalities such as gene therapies, cell therapies, and multi-specific biologics is increasing the diversity of testing requirements and driving demand for specialized assays and characterization approaches. Regulators are responding with more prescriptive guidance on risk-based approaches and expectations for characterization, while inspectors emphasize traceability, method validation, and data integrity. At the same time, contract testing providers are expanding capabilities to meet developer needs, fostering a dynamic ecosystem in which partnerships, platform specialization, and geographic capability footprints become differentiators. Taken together, these shifts compel organizations to re-evaluate testing strategies, invest selectively in capabilities that future-proof programs, and cultivate stronger oversight over partners and suppliers.
Assessment of recent U.S. tariff changes and their operational implications for procurement, supplier qualification, and continuity of biologics safety testing
Recent tariff developments in the United States have introduced an extra layer of complexity for organizations that depend on global sourcing for reagents, instruments, and specialized services. Changes in import duties can affect procurement timing, supplier selection, and cost structures, prompting organizations to re-examine supply chain resilience and the geographic diversity of their vendor base. In some instances, firms have accelerated qualification of alternate suppliers in geographically diversified regions or adjusted inventory strategies to mitigate the impact of trade disruptions.
Beyond procurement, tariff shifts can influence decisions around where to site critical testing operations, how to structure contractual terms with contract research organizations and contract manufacturing organizations, and whether to pursue additional domestic capability for key assays. For leaders, the pragmatic response combines short-term operational adjustments with longer-term strategic planning: maintain transparent supplier engagement, strengthen demand planning, and evaluate opportunities to localize essential reagent and kit sourcing where doing so reduces risk and preserves continuity of testing programs. In parallel, organizations should track policy developments closely and incorporate tariff scenario planning into supplier risk assessments to ensure testing continuity under evolving trade conditions.
Integrated segmentation analysis revealing where product types, test modalities, applications, and end-user needs converge to shape testing priorities and capability gaps
A nuanced segmentation-driven view of the market reveals where capability gaps and opportunities intersect with product development needs. Considering products studied across Instruments, Reagents & Kits, and Services, decision-makers must weigh capital investment in instrumentation against the flexibility and outsourcing benefits offered by reagents and third-party testing services. Instruments deliver platform control and data continuity, reagents and kits enable standardized assay deployment, and services provide access to specialized expertise without long-term fixed costs.
When examining test types such as Adventitious Agent Detection, Bioburden Testing, Cell Line Authentication & Characterization, Endotoxin Testing, Mycoplasma Testing, Residual Host Cell Protein (HCP) Testing, and Sterility Testing, it becomes clear that each category demands distinct technical approaches and validation pathways. Adventitious agent detection and cell line characterization require high-sensitivity molecular tools and deep bioinformatics support, whereas endotoxin and mycoplasma testing are often driven by well-established compendial methods supplemented by rapid technologies that reduce time to result. Residual HCP testing and sterility assays pose distinct analytical challenges tied to matrix effects and method robustness.
Applications across Gene Therapy, Monoclonal Antibody Production, Recombinant Protein Therapeutics, Stem Cell Research, Tissue Engineering, and Vaccine Development impose divergent testing requirements that map to assay selection and regulatory expectations. Gene therapies demand specialized viral clearance and vector characterization strategies, monoclonal antibody programs focus on immunogenicity and impurity profiling, and vaccine development introduces scale and lot-release considerations that drive high-throughput testing needs. Across these applications, end users including Academic & Research Institutes, Contract Research Organizations (CROs), and Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology Companies operate with different priorities: academic settings emphasize exploratory methods and flexibility, CROs balance throughput with regulatory compliance for multiple clients, and industry sponsors prioritize scalability, traceability, and supply chain control. Understanding how these segmentation dimensions interact helps stakeholders prioritize investments in capabilities that align with their dominant use cases and regulatory commitments.
Comparative regional perspectives on regulatory emphasis, capability concentration, and supply chain localization shaping biologics testing across global markets
Regional dynamics materially influence the development and delivery of biologics safety testing services, driven by differences in regulatory frameworks, talent availability, and manufacturing footprints. In the Americas, established regulatory pathways and a mature biotech ecosystem support advanced assay adoption and scale-up of testing capacity, while the presence of major contract testing providers enables sponsors to outsource complex testing workflows with confidence. Investment in laboratory automation and digital data management is widespread, supporting higher throughput and greater adherence to data integrity expectations.
In Europe, Middle East & Africa, regulatory harmonization across many markets and a strong emphasis on compliance drive a focus on validated methods and cross-border collaboration. The region’s rich academic base also supplies specialized research capability that feeds into commercial testing services. Across Asia-Pacific, rapid expansion of biopharmaceutical manufacturing and strong government support for biotech innovation have increased demand for local testing capacity, prompting growth in both domestic service providers and regional subsidiaries of global laboratories. Taken together, these regional patterns suggest that strategy should account for the localization of supply chains, the availability of specialized skill sets, and differing regulatory emphasis to optimize where and how testing activities are performed.
How capability depth, service model flexibility, and strategic partnerships are defining competitive advantage among instrument, reagent, and service providers
Key industry participants are navigating a landscape that rewards technical depth, operational reliability, and flexible service models. Leading instrument manufacturers continue to invest in automation and connectivity to reduce operator variability and accelerate throughput, while providers of reagents and kits emphasize standardization and quality control to support reproducible results across laboratories. At the same time, service providers are expanding portfolios to include advanced molecular assays and data analytics capabilities that meet the evolving needs of complex modalities.
Strategic collaborations between sponsors and specialist laboratories have become more common, enabling access to niche expertise such as vector characterization or advanced host cell impurity assays without the need for in-house build-out. In parallel, some large sponsors are pursuing insourced options for critical assays to retain control over sensitive processes and to reduce dependence on single-source suppliers. Across the ecosystem, investment in quality systems, regulatory intelligence, and workforce development is a consistent differentiator, as firms that can demonstrate robust method validation, stringent data governance, and rapid responsiveness to regulatory inquiries are more likely to sustain long-term client relationships.
Actionable industry leadership priorities to strengthen assay consistency, supply resilience, and partner governance while advancing analytic capability
Industry leaders should adopt a pragmatic blend of capability investment, partnership governance, and supply chain risk management to navigate current pressures and future-proof operations. Prioritize harmonizing assay selection and data standards across internal and external laboratories to reduce variability and facilitate cross-study comparability. Strengthening method validation practices and enhancing data integrity protocols will reduce regulatory friction and accelerate release decisions while preserving patient safety.
In parallel, construct a supplier diversification strategy that balances the benefits of localized sourcing with the efficiencies of global suppliers. Engage in proactive contracting that codifies quality expectations, turnaround commitments, and contingency measures. Invest selectively in automation and digital integration where these technologies will materially shorten time to result or reduce operator-dependent variability. Finally, cultivate internal expertise in emerging modalities through focused hiring and targeted training, and formalize escalation pathways with partners so complex analytical issues receive rapid, expert attention. Taken together, these actions will reduce program risk and ensure testing capabilities remain aligned with evolving therapeutic and regulatory demands.
Overview of the mixed-method research approach combining stakeholder interviews, regulatory analysis, and comparative capability benchmarking to derive actionable insights
This research synthesized primary interviews with laboratory directors, quality leaders, and commercial development experts, combined with secondary analysis of regulatory guidance, technical literature, and publicly available corporate disclosures to build a comprehensive view of the testing landscape. The primary qualitative engagement emphasized operational pain points, vendor selection criteria, and areas where sponsors see the greatest need for technical innovation. Secondary sources were used to validate trends, clarify terminology, and map regulatory expectations across key jurisdictions.
Analytical approaches included comparative method mapping to identify where technologies supplant or complement compendial assays, supplier capability benchmarking to assess differentiation, and scenario analysis to evaluate supply chain responses to trade shifts. Throughout, emphasis was placed on identifying actionable insights rather than producing numeric forecasts. Quality control measures for the research included cross-validation of interview findings against documentary evidence and peer review by subject matter experts with experience in both laboratory operations and regulatory affairs.
Closing synthesis highlighting the strategic actions required to maintain safety assurance and operational resilience as biologic modalities and regulatory demands evolve
In sum, biologics safety testing sits at a critical inflection point where technological innovation, regulatory sophistication, and supply chain dynamics collectively shape development success. Organizations that align their testing strategies with evolving modality requirements, invest selectively in automation and data integrity, and manage supplier relationships with disciplined governance will be better positioned to mitigate risk and accelerate program milestones. Equally important is maintaining adaptive operational plans that account for trade policy shifts and regional capability variations, thereby preserving continuity of testing services under changing conditions.
As therapeutic complexity increases, test developers and sponsors must continue to prioritize robust characterization and traceable data practices to meet both regulatory expectations and patient safety imperatives. By translating the insights in this summary into targeted investments and governance changes, stakeholders can strengthen their assurance frameworks and support the reliable delivery of safe biologic therapies.
Please Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
182 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.4. Currency
- 1.5. Language
- 1.6. Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 3. Executive Summary
- 4. Market Overview
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. Increasing adoption of AI-driven predictive toxicology models for biologics safety evaluation
- 5.2. Integration of microphysiological systems to improve human-relevant biologics toxicity screening
- 5.3. Advancements in high-throughput flow cytometry for accelerated biologics immunogenicity assessment
- 5.4. Regulatory alignment on ICH S6(R2) guidelines driving harmonized biologics safety protocols
- 5.5. Expansion of single-use automation platforms to streamline large-scale biologics safety testing workflows
- 5.6. Utilization of organ-on-chip technologies for organ-specific toxicity profiling of novel biologic therapies
- 5.7. Implementation of multi-omics approaches to enhance mechanistic insights in biologics safety evaluation
- 5.8. Emergence of CRISPR-engineered cell lines for targeted immunotoxicity and off-target effect studies
- 5.9. Growth of in silico modeling and simulation for early-stage biologics safety risk prediction
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Biologics Safety Testing Market, by Product Type
- 8.1. Instruments
- 8.2. Reagents & Kits
- 8.3. Services
- 9. Biologics Safety Testing Market, by Test Type
- 9.1. Adventitious Agent Detection
- 9.2. Bioburden Testing
- 9.3. Cell Line Authentication & Characterization
- 9.4. Endotoxin Testing
- 9.5. Mycoplasma Testing
- 9.6. Residual Host Cell Protein (HCP) Testing
- 9.7. Sterility Testing
- 10. Biologics Safety Testing Market, by Application
- 10.1. Gene Therapy
- 10.2. Monoclonal Antibody Production
- 10.3. Recombinant Protein Therapeutics
- 10.4. Stem Cell Research
- 10.5. Tissue Engineering
- 10.6. Vaccine Development
- 11. Biologics Safety Testing Market, by End User
- 11.1. Academic & Research Institutes
- 11.2. Contract Research Organizations (CROs)
- 11.3. Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology Companies
- 12. Biologics Safety Testing Market, by Region
- 12.1. Americas
- 12.1.1. North America
- 12.1.2. Latin America
- 12.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 12.2.1. Europe
- 12.2.2. Middle East
- 12.2.3. Africa
- 12.3. Asia-Pacific
- 13. Biologics Safety Testing Market, by Group
- 13.1. ASEAN
- 13.2. GCC
- 13.3. European Union
- 13.4. BRICS
- 13.5. G7
- 13.6. NATO
- 14. Biologics Safety Testing Market, by Country
- 14.1. United States
- 14.2. Canada
- 14.3. Mexico
- 14.4. Brazil
- 14.5. United Kingdom
- 14.6. Germany
- 14.7. France
- 14.8. Russia
- 14.9. Italy
- 14.10. Spain
- 14.11. China
- 14.12. India
- 14.13. Japan
- 14.14. Australia
- 14.15. South Korea
- 15. Competitive Landscape
- 15.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 15.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 15.3. Competitive Analysis
- 15.3.1. Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
- 15.3.2. Charles River Laboratories International, Inc.
- 15.3.3. Eurofins Scientific SE
- 15.3.4. SGS SA
- 15.3.5. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
- 15.3.6. WuXi AppTec Co., Ltd.
- 15.3.7. Intertek Group plc
- 15.3.8. Merck KGaA
- 15.3.9. QPS Holdings LLC
- 15.3.10. Danaher Corporation
- 15.3.11. FUJIFILM Corporation
- 15.3.12. Agilent Technologies, Inc.
- 15.3.13. GenScript Biotech Corporation
- 15.3.14. Promega Corporation
- 15.3.15. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.
- 15.3.16. QIAGEN N.V.
- 15.3.17. Becton, Dickinson and Company
- 15.3.18. Pace Analytical Services, LLC
- 15.3.19. Cytiva Europe GmbH
- 15.3.20. Toxikon Corporation
- 15.3.21. Microcoat Biotechnologie GmbH
- 15.3.22. Syngene International Limited
- 15.3.23. Samsung Biologics Co., Ltd.
- 15.3.24. Associates of Cape Cod, Inc.
- 15.3.25. Clean Biologics SAS
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
