US dataswitch to UK
Genetic Counselors
interpreting laboratory results and communicating findings to patients or physicians, determining or coordinating treatment plans by requesting laboratory services and interviewing patients or reviewing medical records to obtain comprehensive patient or family medical histories. 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: analyzing genetic information to identify patients or families at risk for specific disorders or syndromes. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, providing counseling to patient and family members by providing information, stays yours. The tools change, the responsibility doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Assess individual or family risk for a variety of inherited conditions, such as genetic disorders and birth defects. Provide information to other healthcare providers or to individuals and families concerned with the risk of inherited conditions. Advise individuals and families to support informed decisionmaking and coping methods for those at risk. May help conduct research related to genetic conditions or genetic counseling. The job title says “genetic counselors”. The real job is the part underneath: providing counseling to patient and family members by providing information. 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 genetic counselors is not one task. It is 19 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is providing counseling to patient and family members by providing information, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 17%
- changing shape
- 32%
- staying human
- 51%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 41 out of 100 (34–48 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 19 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 genetic counselors 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.
- 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
3 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.
Analyzing genetic information to identify patients or families at risk for specific disorders or syndromes
This is reading one thing and writing another: genetic information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Analyze genetic information to identify patients or families at risk for specific disorders or syndromes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 62 out of 100 (55–69 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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Matching family history and genetic data against known risk patterns is analysis work with excellent published reference data.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Reading current literature
This is reading one thing and writing another: current literature in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Read current literature, talk with colleagues, or participate in professional organizations or conferences to keep abreast of developments in genetics.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 70 out of 100 (63–77 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 up with new research is reading and summarizing, which tools do quickly across large amounts of published material.
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 4/4.
Preparing or providing genetics-related educational materials to patients or medical personnel
This is reading one thing and writing another: genetics-related educational materials in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare or provide genetics-related educational materials to patients or medical personnel.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (62–76 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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Producing patient leaflets and teaching material is document work, though clinical accuracy needs a qualified person during writing.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
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.
Writing detailed consultation reports to provide information on complex genetic concepts to patients or referring physicians
The software now makes the first pass at detailed consultation reports, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Write detailed consultation reports to provide information on complex genetic concepts to patients or referring physicians.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Writing a clear consultation report from case notes is document work, though a qualified counselor signs off the clinical content.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing patients with information about the inheritance of conditions
The software now makes the first pass at patients, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide patients with information about the inheritance of conditions such as cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, and various forms of cancer.” (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: reading one thing and writing another; 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: Explaining how a condition is inherited draws on very well documented material, though a qualified person handles the conversation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Referring patients to specialists or community resources
The software now makes the first pass at patients, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Refer patients to specialists or community resources.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Matching a patient to the right specialist or support service is largely a lookup against known criteria.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Explaining diagnostic procedures, chorionic villus sampling, CVS), ultrasound, fetal blood sampling and amniocentesis
The software now makes the first pass at diagnostic procedures, chorionic villus sampling, cvs), ultrasound, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Explain diagnostic procedures such as chorionic villus sampling (CVS), ultrasound, fetal blood sampling, and amniocentesis.” (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: reading one thing and writing another; 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: Explaining what an amniocentesis or ultrasound involves uses standard published material, though patients want a person to ask.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Staying human
9 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.
Interpreting laboratory results and communicating findings to patients or physicians
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for laboratory results, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Interpret laboratory results and communicate findings to patients or physicians.” (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: reading one thing and writing another; 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: Reading a genetic test result is well documented analysis, but a qualified counselor must deliver and stand behind the finding.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Discussing testing options and the associated risks
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for options, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Discuss testing options and the associated risks, benefits and limitations with patients and families to assist them in making informed decisions.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Weighing up whether to test at all is a decision families make with a qualified counselor beside them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing counseling to patient and family members by providing information
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patient, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Provide counseling to patient and family members by providing information, education, or reassurance.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (10–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high 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: Reassuring a frightened family is the part of the job that only a person sitting with them can do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 9 tasks
Identifying funding sources and writing grant proposals for eligible programs or services
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at sources, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Identify funding sources and write grant proposals for eligible programs or services.” (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 produces usable drafts from tools, but the pitch has to be shaped to the specific funder.
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.
Collecting for or share with, research projects patient data on specific genetic disorders or syndromes
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at or share, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Collect for, or share with, research projects patient data on specific genetic disorders or syndromes.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Assembling patient data for a research project is structured data handling, with privacy rules a person oversees.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating or making recommendations for standards of care or clinical operations
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at recommendations, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Evaluate or make recommendations for standards of care or clinical operations, ensuring compliance with applicable regulations, ethics, legislation, or policies.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Reviewing whether practice meets regulations and ethics guidance is documented review work with a professional judgment attached.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Interviewing patients or reviewing medical records to obtain comprehensive patient or family medical histories
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Interview patients or review medical records to obtain comprehensive patient or family medical histories, and document findings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Drawing out a full family history takes careful questioning, though the resulting write up is routine documentation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing and conducting genetics training programs
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles genetics training programs and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Design and conduct genetics training programs for physicians, graduate students, other health professions or the general community.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 34 out of 100 (27–41 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Course design is document work, but teaching clinicians and students happens live in a room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Engaging in research activities related to the field of medical genetics or genetic counseling
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put research activities well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Engage in research activities related to the field of medical genetics or genetic counseling.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Research work involves designing studies and analyzing data, which tools support strongly, though the direction stays with the researcher.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Determining or coordinating treatment plans by requesting laboratory services
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for treatment plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Determine or coordinate treatment plans by requesting laboratory services, reviewing genetics or counseling literature, and considering histories or diagnostic data.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 31 out of 100 (24–38 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 rating behind it: Planning what tests and next steps to take draws on published guidance but remains a regulated clinical decision.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Assessing patients' psychological or emotional needs
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients' psychological, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Assess patients' psychological or emotional needs, such as those relating to stress, fear of test results, financial issues, and marital conflicts to make referral recommendations or assist patients in managing test outcomes.” (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: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Noticing that someone is frightened, or that money or a marriage is the real issue, comes from being with them.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing genetic counseling in specified areas of clinical genetics
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for genetic, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Provide genetic counseling in specified areas of clinical genetics, such as obstetrics, pediatrics, oncology and neurology.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Specialist counseling in areas like cancer or pregnancy care combines regulated clinical judgment with a live, delicate conversation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $100,040a 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
- 3,740in 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: genetic information in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: analyzing genetic information to identify patients or families at risk for specific disorders or syndromes and reading current literature. What it cannot do is be answerable: patient needs a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. 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: providing counseling to patient and family members by providing information is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 17% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 32% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 51% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 19 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. Analyzing genetic information to identify patients or families at risk for specific disorders or syndromes 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 genetic information, 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 results 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 writing detailed consultation reports to provide information on complex genetic concepts to patients or referring physicians. 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 genetic counselors (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was neurologists: only about 8% of its durable work is work you already do and the 2.5× pay gap is the market pricing a barrier. Your own job splits about 17/83: 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 “interpret laboratory results and communicate findings to patients or physicians”, 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.
Neurologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already interview patients or review medical records to obtain comprehensive patient or family medical…, and their equivalent is to interview patients to obtain information. Across both published task lists that is about 8% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $248,560 against your $100,040 is 2.48× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 8% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route.
Biological Scientists, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already read current literature, talk with colleagues, or participate in professional organizations or conferences…, and their equivalent is to attend clinical and research conferences and read scientific literature to keep abreast of…. 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.
Healthcare Social Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already discuss testing options and the associated risks, benefits and limitations with patients and…, and their equivalent is to educate clients about end-of-life symptoms and options to assist them in making informed…. 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: $67,880 against your $100,040, 32.1% 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: 17% of its task weight, across 19 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 providing counseling to patient and family members by providing information 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 Occupational therapists 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 Occupational therapists, Podiatrists and Therapy professionals n.e.c.. 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 genetic counselors, 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 17% 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 genetic counselors. 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 genetic counselors 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 Genetic Counselors?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 19 official task statements scored for Genetic Counselors (United States, SOC 29-9092), 17% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 41 out of 100 (range 34–48, 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 “Genetic Counselors” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Read current literature, talk with colleagues, or participate in professional organizations or conferences to keep abreast of developments in genetics” (70/100, high); “Prepare or provide genetics-related educational materials to patients or medical personnel” (69/100, high); “Analyze genetic information to identify patients or families at risk for specific disorders or syndromes” (62/100, 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 “Genetic Counselors” stay human?
- About 51% 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: “Provide counseling to patient and family members by providing information, education, or reassurance” (14/100, minimal); “Discuss testing options and the associated risks, benefits and limitations with patients and families to assist them in making informed decisions” (20/100, low); “Provide genetic counseling in specified areas of clinical genetics, such as obstetrics, pediatrics, oncology and neurology” (20/100, low). 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 “Genetic Counselors” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 17% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 51% 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 Genetic Counselors 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 19 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.
- 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.