Will AI replace Chemical scientists?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 91 official task statements scored for Chemical scientists (United Kingdom, SOC 2111), 20% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 33 out of 100 (range 28–39, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Chemical scientists” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Write reports to summarise scientific findings” (93/100, very high); “Calculate equipment operating factors using standard formulae and conversion tables” (88/100, very high); “Maintain awareness of health and safety issues and legislation” (83/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Chemical scientists” stay human?

About 64% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Set control panel switches to route electric power from sources and direct particle beams through injector units” (0/100, minimal); “Adjust diagnostic equipment to ensure accurate readings” (0/100, minimal); “Test equipment to ensure proper operation in installation or maintenance tasks” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.

What should someone working in “Chemical scientists” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 20% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 64% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

How is the AI exposure score for Chemical scientists calculated?

Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 91 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

UK dataswitch to US

Chemical scientists

analysing and interpreting test data to support chemical research and development, identifying hazards or maintenance needs in nuclear reactor equipment and testing accelerator systems to ensure optimal performance. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: analysing and interpreting test data to support chemical research and development. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 20%
changing shape: 16%
staying human: 64%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 33 out of 100 (28–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 91 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for chemical scientists is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, inducing changes in composition of substances by introducing heat, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.

Your week, as this page understands it

Chemical scientists analyse and research physical aspects of chemical structure and change within substances and develop chemical techniques used in the manufacture or modification of natural substances and processed products. The job title says “chemical scientists”. The real job is the part underneath: inducing changes in composition of substances by introducing heat. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But chemical scientists is not one task. It is 91 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is inducing changes in composition of substances by introducing heat, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 20%
changing shape: 16%
staying human: 64%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

2 rows are marked low confidence, so treat them as a ballpark rather than a fine measurement.
29 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

18 tasks

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Analysing and interpreting test data to support chemical research and development
This is reading one thing and writing another: test data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 95 · 2111/01, 2111/02, 2111/04
Source: “Analyse and interpret test data to support chemical research and development.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reading patterns out of test data is exactly what AI does well, though a chemist checks the conclusions make sense.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Compiling chemical test information for research documentation
This is reading one thing and writing another: chemical test information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2111/01, 2111/02, 2111/04
Source: “Compile chemical test information for research documentation.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Pulling test results together into research documents is compiling and formatting work that software does quickly and consistently.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analysing test data to diagnose malfunctions in systems
This is reading one thing and writing another: test data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2111/01, 2111/02, 2111/04
Source: “Analyse test data to diagnose malfunctions in systems.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reading test data to work out what has failed is pattern analysis over numbers, which software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating and interpreting experimental data critically
This is reading one thing and writing another: experimental data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 90 · 2111/01
Source: “Evaluate and interpret experimental data critically.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Critically weighing experimental results against expectations is analysis that AI handles well, with a scientist confirming the judgement.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

14 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Customising analytical methods to meet specific research requirements
The software now makes the first pass at analytical methods, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 2111/01, 2111/02, 2111/04
Source: “Customise analytical methods to meet specific research requirements.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Adapting a published method can be drafted on paper, but the tweaks only prove out through laboratory testing.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising staff on test procedures for analysing materials' physical properties
The software now makes the first pass at staff, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 2111/01, 2111/02, 2111/04
Source: “Advise staff on test procedures for analysing materials' physical properties.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Standard test procedures are well documented, so guidance can be generated, though colleagues often need showing at the bench.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating new processes to demonstrate their efficiency and improvement over existing methods
The software now makes the first pass at new processes, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2111/01, 2111/02, 2111/04
Source: “Evaluate new processes to demonstrate their efficiency and improvement over existing methods.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Comparing process performance is a data exercise, though the trial runs that generate the evidence happen in the plant.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

59 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Analysing compounds to determine properties using chromatography techniques
This work happens in the physical world: compounds, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2111/01, 2111/02, 2111/04
Source: “Analyse compounds to determine properties using chromatography techniques.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Interpreting the resulting traces is computer work, but getting the compound through the instrument still needs bench time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Inducing changes in composition of substances by introducing heat
This work happens in the physical world: changes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2111/01, 2111/02, 2111/04
Source: “Induce changes in composition of substances by introducing heat, light, energy, or chemical catalysts for quantitative or qualitative analysis.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Actually putting heat, light or catalysts into substances means physically handling them in a laboratory.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Ensuring effective lab practices and adherence to Health & Safety procedures
This work happens in the physical world: effective lab practices, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2111/01, 2111/02, 2111/04
Source: “Ensure effective lab practices and adherence to Health & Safety procedures.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Procedures and audits can be drafted, but keeping a lab safe means being in it and noticing what people actually do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 81 tasks

Writing reports to summarise scientific findings
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2111/01
Source: “Write reports to summarise scientific findings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing up findings into a report is drafting work AI does very well from the underlying data.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Calculating equipment operating factors using standard formulae and conversion tables
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: equipment operating factors in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2111/03
Source: “Calculate equipment operating factors using standard formulae and conversion tables.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: These are standard formula calculations with published tables, which software does quickly and accurately.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Maintaining awareness of health and safety issues and legislation
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: awareness of health in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2111/01
Source: “Maintain awareness of health and safety issues and legislation.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Health and safety rules are published in full, so tools summarise and track them reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Researching, and applying thing latest technologies relevant to the job role
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: this work in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2111/01
Source: “Research and apply the latest technologies relevant to the job role.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping up with new technology draws on abundant published material software summarises well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Publishing papers based on analytical and nutritional reports
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: papers in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2111/01
Source: “Publish papers based on analytical and nutritional reports.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Turning results into a written paper is drafting work AI does strongly, drawing on a vast published literature.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Interpreting chemical data according to guidelines
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: chemical data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2111/01
Source: “Interpret chemical data according to guidelines.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Applying set guidelines to chemical readings is rule-following that software does reliably, with a chemist checking unusual results.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Completing relevant documentation for the manufacturing process
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: relevant documentation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2111/02
Source: “Complete relevant documentation for the manufacturing process, including calculations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Batch documents and their calculations follow fixed templates, so software can fill them in, with a named person signing.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing reports describing contamination tests
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: reports describing contamination tests in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2111/03
Source: “Prepare reports describing contamination tests, decontaminated materials or equipment, and decontamination methods.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (74–88 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Contamination reports follow standard templates fed by test data, so software produces strong drafts for checking.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Interpreting design sketches, specifications or drawings to innovate chemical products
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: design sketches, specifications or drawings in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2111/04
Source: “Interpret design sketches, specifications, or drawings to innovate chemical products.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reading specifications and drawings to pull out what matters is document work that AI handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing research proposals to outline study objectives
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: research proposals in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 2111/04
Source: “Write research proposals to outline study objectives.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Setting out study aims and methods in a proposal is structured writing that AI does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining accurate records
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: accurate records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2111/04
Source: “Maintain accurate records.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping records accurate is routine screen work software does reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Compiling detailed product specifications and labelling for food products
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: detailed product specifications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2111/04
Source: “Compile detailed product specifications and labelling for food products.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (65–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Food labelling rules are precise and published, so software compiles specifications and label text well for checking.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Recording data following strict documentation guidelines
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: data following strict documentation guidelines in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2111/01
Source: “Record data following strict documentation guidelines.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Recording data to a fixed format is structured work software does consistently, with the reading taken where the work happens.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Publishing engineering reports documenting design details or qualification test results
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: reports documenting design details in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2111/02
Source: “Publish engineering reports documenting design details or qualification test results.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Engineering reports follow set structures and draw on test data, so software drafts them well for expert checking.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Applying for funding to support community or research projects
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at funding, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 50 · 2111/04
Source: “Apply for funding to support community or research projects.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Tools draft funding bids well, but tailoring one to a specific funder still needs substantial human reworking.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Applying theoretical knowledge of science and technology to the required sector and job role
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at theoretical knowledge of science, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 2111/02
Source: “Apply theoretical knowledge of science and technology to the required sector and job role.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (44–68 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, low confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Applying textbook science to the job is well-documented reasoning software is good at, though the setting is a working lab.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Calculating and setting standards or specifications
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at standards, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2111/02
Source: “Calculate and set standards or specifications for manufacturing, construction, or installation through detailed calculations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: The calculations are well documented, but specifications people build to need a suitably qualified person answerable for them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing organisational policies in accordance with regulatory and ethical standards
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at organisational policies, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2111/02
Source: “Develop organisational policies in accordance with regulatory and ethical standards.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Policies are drafted from published regulations and standards, with the organisation approving the final version.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Devising test methods to assess the production process
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at test methods, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2111/04
Source: “Devise test methods to assess the production process.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Test methods follow well-established templates, so a good draft comes easily, though it must be tried on the line.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Investigating alternative materials to improve efficiency and quality in bottleneck areas
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at alternative materials, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 65 · 2111/04
Source: “Investigate alternative materials to improve efficiency and quality in bottleneck areas.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Searching the literature for alternative materials is a strong fit for AI, though shortlisted options must be tested.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing controlled experiments to study drug activity
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at controlled experiments, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2111/04
Source: “Design controlled experiments to study drug activity.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Experimental designs follow published precedent, so software proposes sound protocols that a scientist adapts and approves.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Briefing workers on radiation levels in work areas
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at workers, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 2111/03
Source: “Brief workers on radiation levels in work areas.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: The briefing content is easy to prepare, but a named, appointed person is responsible for radiation safety information given to workers.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Devising new processes to optimise the manufacturing process
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at new processes, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2111/04
Source: “Devise new processes to optimise the manufacturing process.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software can suggest process improvements, but designing them for a real production line needs shop-floor knowledge.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Innovating production methods to enhance efficiency
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at production methods, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2111/04
Source: “Innovate production methods to enhance efficiency.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Ideas can be generated from published methods, but proving them means changing the real production line.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing actions like lockouts and tagouts for safe equipment repair
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at actions like lockouts, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2111/03
Source: “Develop actions like lockouts and tagouts for safe equipment repair.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 42 out of 100 (35–49 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Isolation procedures are written from documented standards, though a competent person must be answerable for a safe system of work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Presenting specific research findings to targeted audience groups
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles specific research findings and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2111/01
Source: “Present specific research findings to targeted audience groups.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Preparing the material is easy, but presenting findings to an audience is live work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Engaging in continuous improvement initiatives to enhance business performance
staying human
The ratings behind this row put continuous improvement initiatives well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 70 · 2111/02
Source: “Engage in continuous improvement initiatives to enhance business performance.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Improvement ideas are easy to generate, but embedding them depends on people and local process.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning projects in collaboration with scientists
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles projects and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2111/01, 2111/02, 2111/04
Source: “Plan projects in collaboration with scientists, engineers, regulators, or others.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Plans can be drafted quickly, but agreeing them across scientists, engineers and regulators is negotiation between people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring product quality to ensure compliance with standards and specifications
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: product quality, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 2111/04
Source: “Monitor product quality to ensure compliance with standards and specifications.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 33 out of 100 (26–40 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Trend analysis of quality data is straightforward for software, though sampling and checking product still happens on the line.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising on equipment modification to enable process changes for new product development
staying human
The ratings behind this row put equipment modification well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 85 · 2111/04
Source: “Advise on equipment modification to enable process changes for new product development.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: General advice can be drafted, but knowing what this particular plant can take comes from seeing the kit.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Working with product pipelines at various stages of development
staying human
The ratings behind this row put product pipelines well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 70 · 2111/04
Source: “Work with product pipelines at various stages of development.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (20–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, low confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Tracking projects through development stages is largely record keeping, but moving each one forward involves people and laboratory work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing new analytical methods to improve chemical analysis
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: new analytical methods, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2111/01
Source: “Develop new analytical methods to improve chemical analysis.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: AI can propose method ideas from published work, but validating a new method means running it repeatedly at the bench.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Studying methods to improve aspects of foods
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: methods, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2111/01, 2111/02, 2111/04
Source: “Study methods to improve aspects of foods, such as chemical composition, flavour, colour, texture, nutritional value, and convenience.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Improving food composition and texture needs bench work and tasting alongside the literature review.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing new chemical products to enhance industrial applications
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: new chemical products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2111/02
Source: “Develop new chemical products to enhance industrial applications.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: AI can suggest promising formulations from published chemistry, but making and testing them happens in a laboratory.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Examining the impact of packaging on food properties
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the impact, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2111/02, 2111/04
Source: “Examine the impact of packaging on food properties.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Published shelf-life data supports desk analysis, but measuring what packaging does to a real food needs laboratory trials.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing new chemical formulations to advance scientific research
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: new chemical formulations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2111/04
Source: “Develop new chemical formulations to advance scientific research.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: AI can propose formulations from known chemistry, but each one must still be mixed and tested at the bench.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Working with clients and stakeholders to meet analytical project goals
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles clients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2111/01
Source: “Work with clients and stakeholders to meet analytical project goals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (21–35 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Project paperwork can be automated, but keeping a client happy through a tricky analytical project depends on the person handling it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing nonstandard tests in collaboration with scientists or engineers
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles nonstandard tests and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2111/01, 2111/02, 2111/04
Source: “Develop nonstandard tests in collaboration with scientists or engineers.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Designing an unusual test is partly a paper exercise, but it depends on working closely with colleagues and trying things out.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing new techniques for the analysis of drug products and chemicals
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: new techniques, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2111/01
Source: “Develop new techniques for the analysis of drug products and chemicals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Ideas for new techniques come easily from the literature, but proving one works on real drug products takes laboratory work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Following quality procedures to meet quality standards
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: quality procedures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 2111/02
Source: “Follow quality procedures to meet quality standards.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Quality procedures are documented, but following them means doing the physical steps correctly each time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Carrying out research to develop prototypes and proof of concepts
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: research, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2111/04
Source: “Carry out research to develop prototypes and proof of concepts.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Research can be drafted by software, but making and testing a physical prototype needs hands and materials.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Publishing research findings or presenting them at conferences and seminars
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: research findings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 2111/04
Source: “Publish research findings or present them at conferences and seminars.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Software helps write up findings, but presenting them at a conference and defending them is done in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Communicating with customers to address their needs
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: customers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2111/01
Source: “Communicate with customers to address their needs.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Serving a customer at the counter happens face to face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Discovering new methods and materials in product development
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: new methods, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2111/04
Source: “Discover new methods and materials in product development.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Genuinely new materials come from experiments nobody has run yet, so AI supplies leads rather than discoveries.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning and carrying out process trials in laboratories
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: process trials, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2111/04
Source: “Plan and carry out process trials in laboratories, pilot plants, or factories.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Planning a trial can be drafted at a desk, but running it in a lab, pilot plant or factory needs people there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Overseeing staff to ensure operational efficiency in laboratory operations
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: staff, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2111/01
Source: “Oversee staff to ensure operational efficiency in laboratory operations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Scheduling and reporting can be automated, but running a lab day to day means being there with the team.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing the collection and testing of samples to determine radioactivity levels or ensure radioactive containment
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the collection, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2111/03
Source: “Direct the collection and testing of samples to determine radioactivity levels or ensure radioactive containment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Directing sampling is partly planning, but radioactive material work needs qualified people present and legally accountable.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing the implementation of decontamination procedures based on equipment and contamination size
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the implementation of decontamination procedures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2111/03
Source: “Direct the implementation of decontamination procedures based on equipment and contamination size, nature, and type.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Choosing the method can be reasoned out, but decontamination is directed on site by someone qualified and accountable.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supporting individual students in conducting their research projects
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: individual students, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 50 · 2111/04
Source: “Support individual students in conducting their research projects.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supporting a student's project depends on an ongoing personal relationship and hands-on help in the lab.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Testing and confirming the accuracy of new analytical methods and equipment
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the accuracy of new analytical methods, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2111/01
Source: “Test and confirm the accuracy of new analytical methods and equipment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Validating a method means running it repeatedly on real samples, with the statistics done afterwards at a desk.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supervising students' research projects in chemistry to foster scientific inquiry
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles students' research projects and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 55 · 2111/04
Source: “Supervise students' research projects in chemistry to foster scientific inquiry.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervising a student project depends on a working relationship and regular personal guidance.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Analysing samples using scientific instruments to determine chemical composition
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: samples, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 95 · 2111/01
Source: “Analyse samples using scientific instruments to determine chemical composition.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Determining composition means preparing samples and running instruments in the laboratory.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Using high performance liquid chromatography
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: high performance liquid chromatography, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 95 · 2111/01
Source: “Use high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) for chemical analysis.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Running samples through a chromatography machine means preparing vials and loading the instrument in the laboratory.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting gas chromatography tests to analyse sample data
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: gas chromatography tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2111/01
Source: “Conduct gas chromatography tests to analyse sample data.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Gas chromatography means physically preparing and running samples on the machine.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting spectroscopy for chemical composition analysis
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: spectroscopy, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2111/01
Source: “Conduct spectroscopy for chemical composition analysis.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Spectrometers need samples mounted and run by hand, even though reading the spectra afterwards is largely automated.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Applying ion chromatography in chemical investigations
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: ion chromatography, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2111/01
Source: “Apply ion chromatography in chemical investigations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Ion chromatography needs samples prepared and the instrument run in person, whatever software does with the output.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Adhering to regulations and internal policies relevant to the role
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: regulations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2111/02
Source: “Adhere to regulations and internal policies relevant to the role.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: AI can explain the rules, but following them is something the cleaner does on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Adjusting process parameters during plant trials to ensure quality in large-scale production
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: process parameters during plant trials, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2111/04
Source: “Adjust process parameters during plant trials to ensure quality in large-scale production.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (5–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Tuning a live plant trial means standing at the controls responding to what the process actually does.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting quality assurance checks to ensure product standards are met
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: quality assurance checks, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2111/01, 2111/02, 2111/04
Source: “Conduct quality assurance checks to ensure product standards are met.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Checking that products meet standards means handling and examining them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Controlling and monitoring a process or plant and equipment efficiently and securely
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: a process, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2111/02
Source: “Control and monitor a process or plant and equipment efficiently and securely, resolving problems and abnormal conditions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Running a plant safely means being at the controls and dealing with what the equipment is actually doing.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting surveillance testing to determine safety of nuclear equipment
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: surveillance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2111/03
Source: “Conduct surveillance testing to determine safety of nuclear equipment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Surveillance testing is carried out on the equipment itself, under rules requiring qualified people to be answerable.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Measuring and identifying radiation types in work areas and equipment using radiation detectors
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: radiation types, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2111/03
Source: “Measure and identify radiation types in work areas and equipment using radiation detectors.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Radiation surveys mean walking the area with a detector, with only the write-up afterwards done at a desk.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Following nuclear equipment operational policies and procedures that ensure environmental safety
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: nuclear equipment operational policies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2111/03
Source: “Follow nuclear equipment operational policies and procedures that ensure environmental safety.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Following nuclear operating procedures is something a person does with the plant, under a strict legal safety regime.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying hazards or maintenance needs in nuclear reactor equipment
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: hazards, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2111/03
Source: “Identify hazards or maintenance needs in nuclear reactor equipment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Spotting problems in reactor equipment means inspecting the plant, under a regime requiring qualified people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Following policies and procedures for radiation workers to ensure personnel safety
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: policies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2111/03
Source: “Follow policies and procedures for radiation workers to ensure personnel safety.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Radiation safety rules govern how a person behaves in the workplace, which software cannot do for them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting chemical experiments to develop new compounds or products
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: chemical experiments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2111/04
Source: “Conduct chemical experiments to develop new compounds or products.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Running chemical experiments means handling substances and equipment at the bench.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Testing accelerator systems to ensure optimal performance
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: accelerator systems, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2111/03
Source: “Test accelerator systems to ensure optimal performance.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Testing an accelerator means operating and adjusting the machine itself, with only the results written up at a desk.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Undering the direction of nuclear experimenters
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the direction of nuclear experimenters, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2111/03
Source: “Under the direction of nuclear experimenters, monitor instruments, gauges, or recording devices.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Watching gauges during a nuclear experiment means being in the facility under supervision, even where readings are logged automatically.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing workers to vacate hazardous areas
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: workers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2111/03
Source: “Direct workers to vacate hazardous areas.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Clearing people out of a dangerous area happens in the moment, on site, with someone in charge taking responsibility.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Preparing test solutions, compounds or reagents for laboratory staff to conduct tests
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: test solutions, compounds or reagents, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2111/01, 2111/02, 2111/04
Source: “Prepare test solutions, compounds, or reagents for laboratory staff to conduct tests.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Making up reagents is physical work with real chemicals.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining and repairing laboratory equipment
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: laboratory equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 2111/01, 2111/02, 2111/04
Source: “Maintain and repair laboratory equipment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Repairing apparatus needs hands and tools on the equipment itself.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Operating a manufacturing batch or continuous process following standard operating procedures
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: a manufacturing batch, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2111/02
Source: “Operate a manufacturing batch or continuous process following standard operating procedures.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Running the process means operating the plant in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Setting and operating computer-controlled machinery
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: computer-controlled machinery, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2111/02
Source: “Set and operate computer-controlled machinery.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Setting up and running machines means loading and adjusting them in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Shutting down/completed a run of the manufacturing batch or continuous process as per standard operating procedures
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: down/completed a run of the manufacturing batch, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 2111/02
Source: “Shut down/completed a run of the manufacturing batch or continuous process as per standard operating procedures.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Shutting down a manufacturing run means operating valves and controls on the plant itself.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Decontaminating objects by abrading with wire brushes
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: objects, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2111/03
Source: “Decontaminate objects by abrading with wire brushes, buffing wheels, or sandblasting machines.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Abrading and blasting contamination off equipment is physical work with tools.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Modifying nuclear equipment used in operations to ensure safety and compliance with regulatory standards
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: nuclear equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2111/03
Source: “Modify nuclear equipment used in operations to ensure safety and compliance with regulatory standards.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Changing nuclear equipment means physically working on it under strict licensing rules.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Setting up equipment to detect area radiation deviations
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2111/03
Source: “Set up equipment to detect area radiation deviations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Setting up detection equipment means physically placing and connecting it in the work area.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining and repairing accelerator systems to prevent malfunctions
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: accelerator systems, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 2111/03
Source: “Maintain and repair accelerator systems to prevent malfunctions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Maintaining and repairing accelerator hardware is hands-on engineering work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Testing equipment to ensure proper operation in installation or maintenance tasks
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 2111/03
Source: “Test equipment to ensure proper operation in installation or maintenance tasks.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Testing that equipment works means operating it and checking the result in front of you.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Adjusting diagnostic equipment to ensure accurate readings
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: diagnostic equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2111/03
Source: “Adjust diagnostic equipment to ensure accurate readings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Adjusting an instrument until it reads correctly is done by hand on the equipment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Setting control panel switches to route electric power from sources and direct particle beams through injector units
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: control panel switches, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2111/03
Source: “Set control panel switches to route electric power from sources and direct particle beams through injector units.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Throwing switches on a control panel is physical operation of the machine.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: £40,000a year, before tax, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.ashe-t14, 2025 · ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
How we know this
Source: ashe-t14
Reference period: ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)
Rounding: Shown to the nearest £100. The exact published figure is in the downloadable dataset. We do not render pounds the survey cannot support.
People doing this job: 25,100in the UK, 2026.nomis-aps · Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period)This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: test data in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: analysing and interpreting test data to support chemical research and development and compiling chemical test information for research documentation. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where changes get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Start with what does not change: inducing changes in composition of substances by introducing heat is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 20% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 16% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 64% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 91 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Analysing and interpreting test data to support chemical research and development is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.

This week: one thing

Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to test data, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.

What you end up holding: a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
How long it takes: ten minutes

If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether changes are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no licence needed.

Over the next 90 days

Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near customising analytical methods to meet specific research requirements. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.

Over the next 12 months

On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, spend an hour with National Careers Service. It is free and government-funded, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest UK occupations to chemical scientists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was laboratory technicians: only about 4% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 29.4% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 33/100 here, with only 20% of the task list in the top band, and “analyse samples using scientific instruments to determine chemical composition” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 412 UK occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Laboratory technicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “prepare test solutions, compounds, or reagents for laboratory staff to conduct tests”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 4% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: £28,210 against your £39,983, 29.4% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Research and development (r&d) managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “test and confirm the accuracy of new analytical methods and equipment”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 4% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Biochemists and biomedical scientists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “conduct chemical experiments to develop new compounds or products”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 3% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 20% of its task weight, across 91 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like inducing changes in composition of substances by introducing heat arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United Kingdom figures

The United States splits this work across more than one official group, of which Chemists is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United States page →partial match

The other groups this work is counted across:

In US official statistics this job is counted as Chemists, Materials Scientists and Nuclear Technicians. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

In England:
National Careers Service
A free hour with a government-funded careers adviser is worth more than another evening of reading. In England that's the National Careers Service.
Free, government-funded
- Discover your skills and careers (the skills assessment)
In England:
National Careers Service - Find a course
Search what's actually running near you before you spend anything.
Free to search; individual courses vary
In England:
Free courses for jobs (Level 3 qualifications)
A free Level 3 qualification you already qualify for beats a paid course you don't need.
Free for eligible adults
In England:
Skills Bootcamps
Free, up to 16 weeks, and you get a job interview at the end. In England these are Skills Bootcamps - search what's running near you.
Free for eligible adults in England
- Skills Bootcamps - what they are and who can do them (DfE, Skills for Careers)
- Skills Bootcamps - JobHelp (DWP)
In Scotland:
My World of Work (Skills Development Scotland)
In Scotland it's My World of Work, from Skills Development Scotland.
Free, publicly funded
- Skills Development Scotland
In Wales:
Careers Wales
In Wales it's Careers Wales.
Free, Welsh Government-funded
In Northern Ireland:
Careers Service Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland it's the Careers Service on nidirect.
Free, Department for the Economy-funded

No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for chemical scientists, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 20% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.

Try The AI Authority free →

7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.

The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for chemical scientists. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for chemical scientists launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for chemical scientists yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for chemical scientists existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for chemical scientists launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Chemical scientists?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 91 official task statements scored for Chemical scientists (United Kingdom, SOC 2111), 20% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 33 out of 100 (range 28–39, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Chemical scientists” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Write reports to summarise scientific findings” (93/100, very high); “Calculate equipment operating factors using standard formulae and conversion tables” (88/100, very high); “Maintain awareness of health and safety issues and legislation” (83/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Chemical scientists” stay human?: About 64% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Set control panel switches to route electric power from sources and direct particle beams through injector units” (0/100, minimal); “Adjust diagnostic equipment to ensure accurate readings” (0/100, minimal); “Test equipment to ensure proper operation in installation or maintenance tasks” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Chemical scientists” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 20% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 64% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Chemical scientists calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 91 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

About the data on this page

Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.
2 rows are marked low confidence, so treat them as a ballpark rather than a fine measurement.
The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
29 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: gaisi-indexProcessing: catalogue-bridge → ssc-relatedness-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: gaisi-index (relatedness)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: ashe-t14 (ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025))nomis-aps (Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.