BioCT, the state’s life sciences industry group, is urging state lawmakers to adopt a package of tax, infrastructure and innovation policies in 2026 to help state biotech companies grow and attract talent.
BioCT’s legislative agenda was released Monday morning during its annual legislative breakfast, which was held virtually due to Sunday’s snowstorm and had about 200 people join online.
Jodie Gillon, president and CEO of BioCT, said the agenda includes her organization’s “main asks” of lawmakers for the 2026 legislative session, which begins next week.
The agenda calls for reducing the state sales tax on consulting services used by biotech companies, arguing that the cost weighs heavily on firms that depend on outside expertise to conduct research and scale operations. It also backs expanding research and development tax incentives, including raising the non-incremental R&D credit to 15% and allowing companies to convert the full value of that credit into cash.
The state legislature last year approved an expansion of the R&D tax credit exchange rate for bioscience companies from 65% to 90%. That change had been a key part of BioCT’s legislative agenda last year.
BioCT also wants the state to allow biotech companies to sell or transfer net operating losses to other taxpayers, a financing tool used in other states to help early-stage companies raise money before becoming profitable.
The group is also seeking a new jobs tax credit for biotech employers, changes to make the state’s angel investor tax credit permanent, and an expansion of sales tax exemptions to include electricity used in research and development.
The group also wants Connecticut to match incentives offered by neighboring states, including grant-matching funds for companies that receive federal Small Business Innovation Research awards. It also proposes creating an emergency state innovation fund and a state-funded working group to monitor federal policy changes affecting the life sciences industry and to promote expanded drug manufacturing and advanced therapies in Connecticut.
During a panel discussion on navigating “federal headwinds,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said state investment in the life sciences industry is critical because of what he described as the Trump administration’s “greatest assault on science and research scientific progress since maybe the Middle Ages.”
“Everybody on this call has seen it in real time,” he said. “The bottom line here is we need to fight back, and I view this gathering as a kind of call to action.”
Nancy J. Brown, Jean & David W. Wallace Dean at the Yale School of Medicine, agreed, saying researchers have “a sense of whiplash” due to the uncertainty around federal research funding. She also noted that Yale University is “third or fourth” in the nation in receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.
“For every dollar that we bring in, that brings in an additional two and a half dollars to the state economy,” Brown said.
Dan O’Keefe, commissioner of the state Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), opened the event by reviewing some of the efforts the state has already made to help the bioscience and biotechnology industries.
In addition to the R&D tax credit change, he also cited the creation of innovation clusters, a $100 million program focused on supporting next-generation technologies. The first award, announced by the state in September, was $50.5 million for public infrastructure to help grow a biotech and quantum technology innovation hub in downtown New Haven.
During his remarks to the group, Gov. Ned Lamont said he supports the bioscience industry.
“I think my job as governor … is to do everything we can to make sure that Connecticut stays a welcoming environment,” he said. “To do everything we can to promote the ecosystem that makes your jobs easier.”
Beyond tax policy, BioCT is calling for increased investment in transportation infrastructure, including Tweed New Haven Airport and Shore Line East rail service, and for state policies that encourage the use of artificial intelligence in the biosciences while protecting patient safety and expanding workforce training.
On health policy, the organization opposes legislation to create a Prescription Drug Affordability Board, saying similar boards in other states have not delivered patient savings, lack patient and provider representation, and could interfere with access to medications, provider reimbursement, existing state law limiting non-medical drug switching, and collectively bargained benefits for state employees.
