US dataswitch to UK
Veterinarians
treating sick or injured animals by prescribing medication, specializing in a particular type of treatment and directing the overall operations of animal hospitals. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: treating sick or injured animals by prescribing medication is work software can't reach.
What shifts is educating the public about diseases that can be spread from animals to humans: the paper around the work, not the work.
Your week, as this page understands it
Diagnose, treat, or research diseases and injuries of animals. Includes veterinarians who conduct research and development, inspect livestock, or care for pets and companion animals. The job title says “veterinarians”. The real job is the part underneath: treating sick or injured animals by prescribing medication. 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 veterinarians is not one task. It is 21 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is treating sick or injured animals by prescribing medication, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 12%
- changing shape
- 0%
- staying human
- 88%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 17 out of 100 (14–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 21 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 veterinarians is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.
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.
Educating the public about diseases that can be spread from animals to humans
This is reading one thing and writing another: the public in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Educate the public about diseases that can be spread from animals to humans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 70 out of 100 (66–74 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: Public education about animal-to-human diseases is written and spoken material drawn from abundant published guidance.
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.
Performing administrative or business management tasks
This is reading one thing and writing another: administrative or business management tasks in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Perform administrative or business management tasks, such as scheduling appointments, accepting payments from clients, budgeting, or maintaining business records.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (65–73 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: Scheduling, payments, budgets and business records are routine office tasks software handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Researching diseases to which animals could be susceptible
This is reading one thing and writing another: diseases in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Research diseases to which animals could be susceptible.” (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: Researching diseases animals are prone to is literature work with abundant published material, well suited to software.
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
0 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.
Nothing in this job’s scored task list landed in this group. That is the measurement, not an editorial choice, and it is worth knowing either way.
Staying human
18 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.
Treating sick or injured animals by prescribing medication
This work happens in the physical world: sick, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Treat sick or injured animals by prescribing medication, setting bones, dressing wounds, or performing surgery.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Setting bones, dressing wounds and operating are hands-on treatments on a live animal.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Examining animals to detect and determine the nature of diseases or injuries
This work happens in the physical world: animals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Examine animals to detect and determine the nature of diseases or injuries.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Examining an animal for disease or injury means touching and handling it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Inoculating animals against various diseases
This work happens in the physical world: animals against various diseases, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Inoculate animals against various diseases, such as rabies or distemper.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Vaccinating an animal means holding it and giving the injection.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Collecting body tissue, feces, blood, urine or other body fluids for examination and analysis
This work happens in the physical world: body tissue, feces, blood, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Collect body tissue, feces, blood, urine, or other body fluids for examination and analysis.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Taking blood, tissue and other samples is a physical procedure on the animal.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Operating diagnostic equipment, such as radiographic or ultrasound equipment and interpreting the resulting images
This work happens in the physical world: diagnostic equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Operate diagnostic equipment, such as radiographic or ultrasound equipment, and interpret the resulting images.” (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 same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software reads scans and X-rays well, but the equipment is operated by hand and a licensed vet owns the diagnosis.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Counseling clients about the deaths of their pets or about euthanasia decisions for their pets
This work happens in the physical world: clients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Counsel clients about the deaths of their pets or about euthanasia decisions for their pets.” (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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Talking an owner through euthanasia or the loss of a pet is a moment that needs a trusted person present.
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 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Euthanizing animals
This work happens in the physical world: animals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Euthanize animals.” (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: Euthanizing an animal is a physical procedure performed by hand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 11 tasks
Attending lectures, conferences or continuing education courses
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put lectures, conferences or continuing education courses well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Attend lectures, conferences, or continuing education courses.” (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: Keeping up with new veterinary knowledge is largely reading, which software speeds up, though conferences are attended in person.
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.
Directing the overall operations of animal hospitals
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles the overall operations of animal hospitals and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Direct the overall operations of animal hospitals, clinics, or mobile services to farms.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software helps with the numbers and admin, but running a clinic depends on leading staff who are physically there.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning or executing animal nutrition or reproduction programs
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: animal nutrition, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Plan or execute animal nutrition or reproduction programs.” (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: Nutrition and breeding programs can be planned from documented science, but carrying them out involves the animals themselves.
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.
Advising animal owners regarding sanitary measures
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for animal owners regarding sanitary measures, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Advise animal owners regarding sanitary measures, feeding, general care, medical conditions, or treatment options.” (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: 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: Software can explain care and treatment options clearly, but advice about a specific animal is a licensed vet responsibility.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Establishing or conducting quarantine or testing procedures that prevent the spread of diseases to other animals or to humans and that comply with applicable government regulations
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: quarantine, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Establish or conduct quarantine or testing procedures that prevent the spread of diseases to other animals or to humans and that comply with applicable government regulations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Quarantine and testing rules can be drafted from regulations, but running them involves real animals and a licensed vet.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Training or supervising workers who handle or care for animals
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: workers who handle, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Train or supervise workers who handle or care for animals.” (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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Training people to handle animals safely means showing them with the animal there.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting postmortem studies and analyses to determine the causes of animals' deaths
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: postmortem studies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Conduct postmortem studies and analyses to determine the causes of animals' deaths.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 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: A postmortem is a hands-on examination performed by a qualified vet.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Determining the effects of drug therapies
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the effects of drug therapies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Determine the effects of drug therapies, antibiotics, or new surgical techniques by testing them on animals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 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: Testing drugs and surgical techniques involves procedures on live animals under a licensed vet.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Specializing in a particular type of treatment
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: a particular type of treatment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Specialize in a particular type of treatment, such as dentistry, pathology, nutrition, surgery, microbiology, or internal medicine.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Practising a specialty such as surgery or dentistry is hands-on clinical work only a licensed vet can do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing care to a wide range of animals or specialize in a particular species
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: care, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Provide care to a wide range of animals or specialize in a particular species, such as horses or exotic birds.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Caring for animals is hands-on work with the animal in front of you.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Inspecting and testing horses, sheep, poultry or other animals to detect the presence of communicable diseases
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: horses, sheep, poultry or other animals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Inspect and test horses, sheep, poultry, or other animals to detect the presence of communicable diseases.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Inspecting and testing animals for communicable disease means handling them on the farm.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $130,100a 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
- 83,900in 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: the public in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: educating the public about diseases that can be spread from animals and performing administrative or business management tasks. What it cannot do is be answerable: sick 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: treating sick or injured animals by prescribing medication is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 12% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 0% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 88% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 21 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. Educating the public about diseases that can be spread from animals to humans 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 the public, 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 sick is 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 treating sick or injured animals by prescribing medication. 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 veterinarians (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was animal caretakers: only about 12% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 72.8% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 17/100 here, with only 12% of the task list in the top band, and “treat sick or injured animals by prescribing medication, setting bones, dressing wounds…” 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.
Animal Caretakers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already examine animals to detect and determine the nature of diseases or injuries, and their equivalent is to examine and observe animals to detect signs of illness, disease, or injury. Across both published task lists that is about 11% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 11% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: $35,360 against your $130,100, 72.8% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Veterinary Assistants and Laboratory Animal Caretakers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already collect body tissue, feces, blood, urine, or other body fluids for examination and…, and their equivalent is to collect laboratory specimens. Across both published task lists that is about 10% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 10% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: $38,150 against your $130,100, 70.7% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Animal Control Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already euthanize animals, and their equivalent is to euthanize rabid, unclaimed, or severely injured animals. Across both published task lists that is about 9% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $45,660 against your $130,100, 64.9% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 12,070 of those jobs against 83,900 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 14% as many seats.
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: 12% of its task weight, across 21 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 treating sick or injured animals by prescribing medication 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 nearest United Kingdom equivalent is Veterinarians. It is a close match rather than an identical one: the two countries draw the boundary of the job in slightly different places.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →close match
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 veterinarians, 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 12% 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 veterinarians. 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 veterinarians 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 Veterinarians?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 21 official task statements scored for Veterinarians (United States, SOC 29-1131), 12% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 17 out of 100 (range 14–22, band: minimal). 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 “Veterinarians” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Research diseases to which animals could be susceptible” (83/100, very high); “Educate the public about diseases that can be spread from animals to humans” (70/100, high); “Perform administrative or business management tasks, such as scheduling appointments, accepting payments from clients, budgeting, or maintaining business rec…” (69/100, 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 “Veterinarians” stay human?
- About 88% 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: “Inspect and test horses, sheep, poultry, or other animals to detect the presence of communicable diseases” (0/100, minimal); “Euthanize animals” (0/100, minimal); “Provide care to a wide range of animals or specialize in a particular species, such as horses or exotic birds” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Veterinarians” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 12% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 88% 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 Veterinarians 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 21 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
- 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 2026-08-04.
- 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.