US dataswitch to UK
Biochemists and Biophysicists
sharing research findings by writing scientific articles or by making presentations at scientific conferences, preparing reports or recommendations, based upon research outcomes and designing or building laboratory equipment needed for special research projects. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: teaching or advising undergraduate or graduate students or supervising their research is work software can't reach.
What shifts is preparing reports or recommendations, based upon research outcomes: the overhead at the edges, not the middle you trained for.
Your week, as this page understands it
Study the chemical composition or physical principles of living cells and organisms, their electrical and mechanical energy, and related phenomena. May conduct research to further understanding of the complex chemical combinations and reactions involved in metabolism, reproduction, growth, and heredity. May determine the effects of foods, drugs, serums, hormones, and other substances on tissues and vital processes of living organisms. The job title says “biochemists” or “biophysicists”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: teaching or advising undergraduate or graduate students or supervising their research. 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 biochemists and biophysicists is not one task. It is 24 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is teaching or advising undergraduate or graduate students or supervising their research, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 5%
- changing shape
- 17%
- staying human
- 78%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 28 out of 100 (22–35 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 24 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 biochemists and biophysicists 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 2026-08-05. 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.
- 9 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
1 taskTasks 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.
Preparing reports or recommendations, based upon research outcomes
This is reading one thing and writing another: reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare reports or recommendations, based upon research outcomes.” (O*NET 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: Turning research outcomes into a written report and recommendations is drafting work 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.
Changing shape
3 tasksTasks 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.
Sharing research findings by writing scientific articles or by making presentations at scientific conferences
The software now makes the first pass at research findings, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Share research findings by writing scientific articles or by making presentations at scientific conferences.” (O*NET 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: Writing up findings is something software drafts well; standing up at a conference to present them is not.
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.
Studying physical principles of living cells or organisms and their electrical or mechanical energy
The software now makes the first pass at physical principles of living cells, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Study physical principles of living cells or organisms and their electrical or mechanical energy, applying methods and knowledge of mathematics, physics, chemistry, or biology.” (O*NET 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: Modelling and calculation are strong, but the measurements come from laboratory instruments.
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.
Writing grant proposals to obtain funding for research
The software now makes the first pass at grant proposals, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Write grant proposals to obtain funding for research.” (O*NET 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: Grant writing follows well-known formats, so software gives a solid draft that the researcher must sharpen.
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.
Staying human
20 tasksTasks 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.
Managing laboratory teams or monitoring the quality of a team's work
The value here is that a specific person handles laboratory teams and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Manage laboratory teams or monitor the quality of a team's work.” (O*NET 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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Reviewing the quality of work can be assisted by software, but leading a lab team is about the people in it.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing new methods to study the mechanisms of biological processes
This work happens in the physical world: new methods, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop new methods to study the mechanisms of biological processes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Genuinely new experimental methods come from expert insight and trial work, not from what is already written down.
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 2/4.
Teaching or advising undergraduate or graduate students or supervising their research
The value here is that a specific person handles undergraduate and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Teach or advise undergraduate or graduate students or supervise their research.” (O*NET 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: Teaching and supervising students works through an ongoing relationship with those particular people.
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.
Designing or building laboratory equipment needed for special research projects
This work happens in the physical world: laboratory equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Design or build laboratory equipment needed for special research projects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Designing custom lab equipment is partly on paper, but building it is bench work.
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 2/4.
Designing or performing experiments with equipment
This work happens in the physical world: experiments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Design or perform experiments with equipment, such as lasers, accelerators, or mass spectrometers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Designing an experiment is desk work, but running lasers or a mass spectrometer means being at the instrument.
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 2/4.
Studying spatial configurations of submicroscopic molecules
This work happens in the physical world: spatial configurations of submicroscopic molecules, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Study spatial configurations of submicroscopic molecules, such as proteins, using x-rays or electron microscopes.” (O*NET 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: Structure software is powerful, but the imaging and crystallography work is done on instruments.
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.
Show the other 14 tasks
Determining the three-dimensional structure of biological macromolecules
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the three-dimensional structure of biological macromolecules, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Determine the three-dimensional structure of biological macromolecules.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 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: Predicting protein structures from sequence is now something software does extremely well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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 the mutations in organisms that lead to cancer or other diseases
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the mutations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Study the mutations in organisms that lead to cancer or other diseases.” (O*NET 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: Analyzing mutation data draws on huge public datasets, though the underlying laboratory work stays hands-on.
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 the chemistry of living processes
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the chemistry of living processes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Study the chemistry of living processes, such as cell development, breathing and digestion, or living energy changes, such as growth, aging, or death.” (O*NET 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: The chemistry of living processes is heavily documented, yet studying it still means running experiments 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.
Researching how characteristics of plants or animals are carried through successive generations
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: how characteristics of plants, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Research how characteristics of plants or animals are carried through successive generations.” (O*NET 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: Inheritance is well documented and data-heavy, though the studies themselves need live organisms and lab work.
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 methods to process, store or use foods, drugs or chemical compounds
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: methods, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Develop methods to process, store, or use foods, drugs, or chemical compounds.” (O*NET 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: Processing and storage methods are well documented, but developing them means testing 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.
Investigating the nature, composition or expression of genes or researching how genetic engineering can impact these processes
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the nature, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Investigate the nature, composition, or expression of genes or research how genetic engineering can impact these processes.” (O*NET 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: Gene analysis leans heavily on public sequence data, while the experiments behind it stay hands-on.
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 molecular or chemical aspects of immune system functioning
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the molecular, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Examine the molecular or chemical aspects of immune system functioning.” (O*NET 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: Immunology data analysis is well suited to AI, though the experiments need laboratory hands.
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 or executing tests to detect diseases
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop or execute tests to detect diseases, genetic disorders, or other abnormalities.” (O*NET 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: Test design can be drafted from published methods, but developing and running the assay is 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.
Researching the chemical effects of substances
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the chemical effects of substances, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Research the chemical effects of substances, such as drugs, serums, hormones, or food, on tissues or vital processes.” (O*NET 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: Finding out how a substance affects tissue requires actual experiments, not just reading the literature.
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.
Researching transformations of substances in cells
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: transformations of substances, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Research transformations of substances in cells, using atomic isotopes.” (O*NET 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 rating behind it: Tracing substances with isotopes is controlled bench work carried out by trained, authorized staff.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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 2/4.
Producing pharmaceutically or industrially useful proteins
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: or industrially useful proteins, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Produce pharmaceutically or industrially useful proteins, using recombinant DNA technology.” (O*NET 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: Producing proteins with recombinant methods is practical laboratory work with cells and equipment.
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.
Isolating, analyzing or synthesize vitamins, hormones, allergens, minerals or enzymes and determining their effects on body functions
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: synthesize vitamins, hormones, allergens, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Isolate, analyze, or synthesize vitamins, hormones, allergens, minerals, or enzymes and determine their effects on body functions.” (O*NET 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: Isolating and synthesizing compounds is chemistry done by hand 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.
Developing or testing new drugs or medications intended for commercial distribution
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: new drugs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Develop or test new drugs or medications intended for commercial distribution.” (O*NET 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: Drug testing is laboratory work under strict rules, even though AI helps with design and analysis.
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.
Preparing pharmaceutical compounds for commercial distribution
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: pharmaceutical compounds, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Prepare pharmaceutical compounds for commercial distribution.” (O*NET 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: Preparing pharmaceutical compounds is physical laboratory work under strict control.
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
- $127,410a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 33,830in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
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: research findings in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: preparing reports or recommendations, based upon research outcomes and sharing research findings by writing scientific articles or by making presentations at scientific conferences. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what undergraduate runs on: someone specific doing it and standing behind it. 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: teaching or advising undergraduate or graduate students or supervising their research is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 5% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 17% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 78% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 24 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. Preparing reports or recommendations, based upon research outcomes 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 research findings, 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 laboratory teams are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license 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 sharing research findings by writing scientific articles or by making presentations at scientific conferences. 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, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, 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 US occupations to biochemists and biophysicists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was astronomers: only about 7% of its durable work is work you already do and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 28/100 here, with only 5% of the task list in the top band, and “share research findings by writing scientific articles or by making presentations at…” 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 830 US 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.
Astronomers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already share research findings by writing scientific articles or by making presentations at scientific…, and their equivalent is to present research findings at scientific conferences and in papers written for scientific journals. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. And it is a narrow door: about 2,120 of those jobs against 33,830 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 6% as many seats.
Biological Scientists, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already write grant proposals to obtain funding for research, and their equivalent is to write grant applications to obtain funding. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $98,920 against your $127,410, 22.4% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already write grant proposals to obtain funding for research, and their equivalent is to write applications for research grants. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
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: $103,410 against your $127,410, 18.8% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
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: 5% of its task weight, across 24 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 teaching or advising undergraduate or graduate students or supervising their research 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 States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Biochemists and biomedical scientists is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Biochemists and biomedical scientists, Other researchers, unspecified discipline, Natural and social science professionals n.e.c. and Biological scientists. 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.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for biochemists / biophysicists, 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 5% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
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 biochemists / biophysicists. 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 biochemists / biophysicists 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 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 Biochemists and Biophysicists?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 24 official task statements scored for Biochemists and Biophysicists (United States, SOC 19-1021), 5% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 28 out of 100 (range 22–35, 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 “Biochemists and Biophysicists” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Prepare reports or recommendations, based upon research outcomes” (75/100, high); “Write grant proposals to obtain funding for research” (58/100, partial); “Share research findings by writing scientific articles or by making presentations at scientific conferences” (48/100, partial). 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 “Biochemists and Biophysicists” stay human?
- About 78% 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: “Prepare pharmaceutical compounds for commercial distribution” (0/100, minimal); “Develop or test new drugs or medications intended for commercial distribution” (6/100, minimal); “Isolate, analyze, or synthesize vitamins, hormones, allergens, minerals, or enzymes and determine their effects on body functions” (8/100, 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 “Biochemists and Biophysicists” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 5% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 78% 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 Biochemists and Biophysicists 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 24 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
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 9 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
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
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.
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}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . 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.