Charles River Laboratories is continuing its run of layoffs by announcing the closure of its cell therapy contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO) site in Hanover, Maryland that will cost the company 20 jobs.
The layoffs and plant closure, announced via state Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) notice, arrive amid an announced restructuring for the Boston-based contract research organization (CRO).
“After a thoughtful review, we determined that our cell therapy facility in Hanover, MD, is not a strategic fit,” a Charles River spokesperson told Fierce Biotech. “In assessing ways to better optimize our business, Charles River will be transitioning client work to other facilities in Charles River’s portfolio.”
The spokesperson confirmed the decision will impact 20 employees and that the company is working to provide resources to support them through the transition, including opportunities for certain staffers to move to other positions within Charles River. Client work will be transitioned to other sites by the second quarter of 2026.
As of publication, the company has not responded to Fierce’s questions about whether further cuts to the CDMO business are expected.
Related
The layoffs accompany other big changes at Charles River. Last month, the CRO giant announced a leadership transition that will send its executive vice president and chief operating officer, Birgit Girshick, into the CEO position in May when longtime CEO Jim Foster CEO is expected to retire.
In an interview with Fierce Biotech last month, Girshick foreshadowed the Maryland closure by describing how pressures on the CDMO industry have posed challenges. “We are a little bit more on a holding back pattern,” she said of Charles River’s CDMO strategy.
The loss of positions in Maryland follows staff layoffs announced in November at Charles River’s Wilmington, Massachusetts site. A company spokesperson told Fierce Biotech that the firm was relocating research model production to other Charles River sites, and as part of the relocation, 70 employees were laid off.
The layoffs arrived in the wake of Charles River revealing the results of its strategic review in November, the same day its third-quarter earnings revealed a continued drop. The review was encouraged by Charles River’s largest shareholder, Elliott Investment Management. The CRO said it intended to slough off “underperforming or non-core” sectors of the business that will include 7% of the company’s projected 2025 revenue. The moves aim to save $70 million per year by 2026.
Charles River’s incoming CEO detailed other corporate developments as part of the strategic shift. She said the firm is looking to invest in emerging technologies and move beyond animal testing, while also locking in animal research deals.
Charles River last month announced its plans to acquire the assets of Cambodia-based non-human primate (NHP) supplier K.F. for $510 million and exercised its ability to acquire the remaining 79% in France-based next-generation sequencing tool firm PathoQuest. The PathoQuest acquisition is intended to replace animal testing used to screen for viral infections.
Related
The K.F. deal is meant to help Charles River gain better control over the supply chain and followed an investigation into monkey trafficking in 2023, from which Charles River was cleared in 2023.
Alternatives to animals, called new approach methodologies (NAMs), have become a priority of the second Trump administration. The National Institutes of Health has launched a center for organoid research and an office to lead NAM research efforts, and the FDA announced plans to end animal testing requirements for monoclonal antibodies. Girshick called Charles River’s move away from animal testing, an evolution rather than revolution.
Girshick told Fierce Biotech that she wants to leave a legacy of modernization at Charles River, continuing to explore automation, digitization and artificial intelligence. At the same time, she said that Charles River wants to focus on areas where it is most competitive. “We have the best science, we have the best technologies, but if [the client] can get it somewhere else cheaper or as good, that may not be the area we want to continue to work on,” she said.
