US dataswitch to UK
Bioengineers and Biomedical Engineers
evaluating the safety, efficiency and effectiveness of biomedical equipment, designing or conducting follow-up experimentation and writing documents describing protocols, policies. 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: developing statistical models or simulations. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, conducting research, along with life scientists, chemists and medical scientists, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.
Your week, as this page understands it
Apply knowledge of engineering, biology, chemistry, computer science, and biomechanical principles to the design, development, and evaluation of biological, agricultural, and health systems and products, such as artificial organs, prostheses, instrumentation, medical information systems, and health management and care delivery systems. The job title says “bioengineers” or “biomedical engineers”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: conducting research, along with life scientists, chemists and medical scientists. 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 bioengineers and biomedical engineers is not one task. It is 30 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is conducting research, along with life scientists, chemists and medical scientists, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 27%
- changing shape
- 20%
- staying human
- 53%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 45 out of 100 (38–51 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 30 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 bioengineers and biomedical engineers 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.
- 4 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
7 tasksTasks 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 technical reports, data summary documents or researching articles for scientific publication, regulatory submissions or patent applications
This is reading one thing and writing another: technical reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare technical reports, data summary documents, or research articles for scientific publication, regulatory submissions, or patent applications.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 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: Writing up results into reports, papers or submissions is document work software drafts well.
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.
Developing statistical models or simulations
This is reading one thing and writing another: statistical models in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop statistical models or simulations, using statistical or modeling software.” (O*NET 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: Building statistical models and simulations in code is well documented and something software does capably.
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.
Maintaining databases of experiment characteristics or results
This is reading one thing and writing another: databases of experiment characteristics in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Maintain databases of experiment characteristics or results.” (O*NET 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: Keeping experiment records organized in a database is routine data work software 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.
Reading current scientific or trade literature to stay abreast of scientific
This is reading one thing and writing another: current scientific in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Read current scientific or trade literature to stay abreast of scientific, industrial, or technological advances.” (O*NET 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: Reading and summarizing published literature to stay current is a core strength of these tools.
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.
Changing shape
7 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.
Developing models or computer simulations of human biobehavioral systems to obtain data for measuring or controlling life processes
The software now makes the first pass at models, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop models or computer simulations of human biobehavioral systems to obtain data for measuring or controlling life processes.” (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: Simulation methods are documented, though building a credible biological model still needs expert setup and checking.
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.
Recommending process formulas, instrumentation or equipment specifications, based on results of bench or pilot experimentation
The software now makes the first pass at process formulas, instrumentation or equipment specifications, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Recommend process formulas, instrumentation, or equipment specifications, based on results of bench or pilot experimentation.” (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: Recommendations follow from documented experiment results, though judging which to adopt still needs an engineer.
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.
Collaborating with manufacturing or quality assurance staff to prepare product specification or safety sheets
The software now makes the first pass at manufacturing, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Collaborate with manufacturing or quality assurance staff to prepare product specification or safety sheets, standard operating procedures, user manuals, or qualification and validation reports.” (O*NET 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: Specifications, procedures and manuals follow set templates that software drafts well from supplied details.
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.
Staying human
16 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.
Designing or developing medical diagnostic or clinical instrumentation
The ratings behind this row put medical diagnostic well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Design or develop medical diagnostic or clinical instrumentation, equipment, or procedures, using the principles of engineering and biobehavioral sciences.” (O*NET 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 same decision, made over and over.
The rating behind it: Designing a new clinical instrument needs original engineering judgment software can only assist with.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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 3/4.
Adapting or designing computer hardware or software for medical science uses
The ratings behind this row put computer hardware well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Adapt or design computer hardware or software for medical science uses.” (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.
The rating behind it: The software side is well supported; medical hardware still needs bench work and regulatory care.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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 3/4.
Conducting research, along with life scientists, chemists and medical scientists
This work happens in the physical world: research, along, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct research, along with life scientists, chemists, and medical scientists, on the engineering aspects of the biological systems of humans and animals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (10–24 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: Bench research on living systems runs on real samples and equipment, not just published knowledge.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 20 tasks
Preparing project plans for equipment or facility improvements
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: project plans in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Prepare project plans for equipment or facility improvements, including time lines, budgetary estimates, or capital spending requests.” (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: Project plans with timelines and cost estimates are structured documents software produces 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 documents describing protocols, policies, standards for use, maintenance and repairing of medical equipment
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: documents describing protocols, policies, standards in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Write documents describing protocols, policies, standards for use, maintenance, and repair of medical equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 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: Protocols and maintenance standards follow set formats, so drafting them is well within software's reach.
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.
Communicating with suppliers regarding the design or specifications of bioproduction equipment
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: suppliers regarding the design in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Communicate with suppliers regarding the design or specifications of bioproduction equipment, instrumentation, or materials.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 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: Specification queries to suppliers are routine written exchanges software can prepare and manage.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing existing manufacturing processes to identify opportunities for yield improvement or reduced process variation
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at processes, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Review existing manufacturing processes to identify opportunities for yield improvement or reduced process variation.” (O*NET 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: Process data can be analyzed for yield and variation opportunities using standard, well-documented methods.
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.
Analyzing new medical procedures to forecast likely outcomes
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at new medical procedures, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Analyze new medical procedures to forecast likely outcomes.” (O*NET 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: Forecasting outcomes from published evidence is partly automatable, but clinical judgment shapes the conclusion.
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.
Designing or directing bench or pilot production experiments to determine the scale of production methods that optimize product yield and minimize production costs
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at bench, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Design or direct bench or pilot production experiments to determine the scale of production methods that optimize product yield and minimize production costs.” (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: Experimental designs for scale-up follow documented methods, but running pilot production is hands-on.
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 hospital administrators on the planning
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at hospital administrators, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Advise hospital administrators on the planning, acquisition, and use of medical equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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: Purchase analysis is documented work, though administrators weigh advice from someone they know and trust.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Leading studies to examine or recommend changes in process sequences or operation protocols
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put studies well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Lead studies to examine or recommend changes in process sequences or operation protocols.” (O*NET 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: Reviewing process steps is analytical, but the recommendations rest on how that plant actually runs.
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.
Advising manufacturing staff regarding problems with fermentation
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put staff regarding problems well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Advise manufacturing staff regarding problems with fermentation, filtration, or other bioproduction processes.” (O*NET 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: Fermentation and filtration problems depend on the particular plant, and much of the know-how is unwritten.
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.
Researching new materials
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put new materials well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Research new materials to be used for products, such as implanted artificial organs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over.
The rating behind it: Finding genuinely new implant materials needs original experimental work, not just reading the literature.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Communicating with bioregulatory authorities regarding licensing or compliance responsibilities
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for bioregulatory authorities, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Communicate with bioregulatory authorities regarding licensing or compliance responsibilities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Regulatory correspondence follows documented rules, but a named responsible person has to stand behind it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing teams of engineers by creating schedules
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles teams of engineers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Manage teams of engineers by creating schedules, tracking inventory, creating or using budgets, or overseeing contract obligations or deadlines.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 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: Schedules and budgets are easy to generate, but keeping an engineering team working well depends on the people.
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 3/4.
Designing or conducting follow-up experimentation
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: follow-up experimentation, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Design or conduct follow-up experimentation, based on generated data, to meet established process objectives.” (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: Designing the next experiment can be drafted from the data, but running it means being 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.
Conferring with research and biomanufacturing personnel to ensure the compatibility of design and production
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles research and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Confer with research and biomanufacturing personnel to ensure the compatibility of design and production.” (O*NET 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: Matching a design to what the plant can actually build depends on conversations with the people who run 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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Evaluating the safety, efficiency and effectiveness of biomedical equipment
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the safety, efficiency and effectiveness of biomedical equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Evaluate the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of biomedical equipment.” (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: Standards and past results are documented, but judging equipment safety usually involves testing the actual device.
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.
Developing bioremediation processes to reduce pollution
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put bioremediation processes well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Develop bioremediation processes to reduce pollution, protect the environment, or treat waste products.” (O*NET 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 five ratings behind the score, with no single dominant reason.
The rating behind it: Designing a bioremediation process for a specific site rests on local conditions and trial work.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Consulting with chemists or biologists to develop or evaluate novel technologies
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles chemists and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Consult with chemists or biologists to develop or evaluate novel technologies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 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: Working out whether a novel technology is worth pursuing depends on unpublished expertise from colleagues.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting training or in-services to educate clinicians and other personnel on proper use of equipment
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: in-services, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Conduct training or in-services to educate clinicians and other personnel on proper use of equipment.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Training material writes itself easily, but showing clinicians how to use a device happens beside the equipment.
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.
Developing methodologies for transferring procedures or biological processes from laboratories to commercial-scale manufacturing production
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: methodologies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop methodologies for transferring procedures or biological processes from laboratories to commercial-scale manufacturing production.” (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: Scaling a lab process to a factory depends on the specific plant and equipment, learned by doing.
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 and delivering technology, such as prosthetic devices, to assist people with disabilities
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: technology, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Design and deliver technology, such as prosthetic devices, to assist people with disabilities.” (O*NET 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: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Fitting a prosthesis to a particular person involves working with them and the device in person.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $109,370a 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
- 23,480in 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: statistical models in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: developing statistical models or simulations and preparing technical reports. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where research, along 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
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Developing statistical models or simulations is going; conducting research, along with life scientists, chemists and medical scientists is not.
So, given all that: 27% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 20% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 53% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 30 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (conducting research, along with life scientists, chemists and medical scientists) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles conducting research, along with life scientists, chemists and medical scientists, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. 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 bioengineers and biomedical engineers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was statisticians: only about 4% of its durable work is work you already do and it is under the same pressure this job is. Your own job splits about 27/73: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “design or develop medical diagnostic or clinical instrumentation, equipment, or procedures, using…”, and let the exposed end go.
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.
Statisticians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already conduct research, along with life scientists, chemists, and medical scientists, on the engineering…, and their equivalent is to design research studies in collaboration with physicians, life scientists, or other professionals. 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. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 72% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (69/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it.
Materials Engineers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already conduct research, along with life scientists, chemists, and medical scientists, on the engineering…, and their equivalent is to supervise the work of technologists, technicians, and other engineers and scientists. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Biological Scientists, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already conduct research, along with life scientists, chemists, and medical scientists, on the engineering…, and their equivalent is to supervise biological technicians and technologists and other scientists. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
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: 27% of its task weight, across 30 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
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 Engineering professionals n.e.c. 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 Engineering professionals n.e.c., Quantity surveyors, Quality control and planning engineers and Engineering project managers and project engineers. 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 bioengineers / biomedical engineers, 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 27% 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 bioengineers / biomedical engineers. 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 bioengineers / biomedical engineers 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 Bioengineers and Biomedical Engineers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 30 official task statements scored for Bioengineers and Biomedical Engineers (United States, SOC 17-2031), 27% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 45 out of 100 (range 38–51, band: partial). 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 “Bioengineers and Biomedical Engineers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Develop statistical models or simulations, using statistical or modeling software” (83/100, very high); “Read current scientific or trade literature to stay abreast of scientific, industrial, or technological advances” (83/100, very high); “Maintain databases of experiment characteristics or results” (75/100, 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 “Bioengineers and Biomedical Engineers” stay human?
- About 53% 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: “Design and deliver technology, such as prosthetic devices, to assist people with disabilities” (10/100, minimal); “Develop methodologies for transferring procedures or biological processes from laboratories to commercial-scale manufacturing production” (16/100, minimal); “Conduct research, along with life scientists, chemists, and medical scientists, on the engineering aspects of the biological systems of humans and animals” (17/100, 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 “Bioengineers and Biomedical Engineers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 27% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 53% 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 Bioengineers and Biomedical Engineers 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 30 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.
- 4 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.