Will AI replace Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 14 official task statements scored for Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists (United States, SOC 19-1023), 7% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 36 out of 100 (range 30–42, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Conduct literature reviews” (83/100, very high); “Analyze characteristics of animals to identify and classify them” (56/100, partial); “Disseminate information by writing reports and scientific papers or journal articles, and by making presentations and giving talks for schools, clubs, intere…” (48/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists” stay human?

About 58% 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: “Collect and dissect animal specimens and examine specimens under microscope” (0/100, minimal); “Prepare collections of preserved specimens or microscopic slides for species identification and study of development or disease” (0/100, minimal); “Organize and conduct experimental studies with live animals in controlled or natural surroundings” (13/100, 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 “Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 7% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 58% 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 Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists 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 14 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.

US dataswitch to UK

Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists

developing or making recommendations, studying animals in their natural habitats and disseminating information by writing reports and scientific papers or journal articles. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: inventorying or estimating plant and wildlife populations is work software can't reach.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 7%
changing shape: 35%
staying human: 58%

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

Whole-job exposure score 36 out of 100 (30–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 14 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 zoologists and wildlife biologists 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.

What shifts is conducting literature reviews. This page scores what today's tools actually do, not headlines.

Your week, as this page understands it

Study the origins, behavior, diseases, genetics, and life processes of animals and wildlife. May specialize in wildlife research and management. May collect and analyze biological data to determine the environmental effects of present and potential use of land and water habitats. The job title says “zoologists” or “wildlife biologists”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: inventorying or estimating plant and wildlife populations. 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 zoologists and wildlife biologists is not one task. It is 14 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is inventorying or estimating plant and wildlife populations, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 7%
changing shape: 35%
staying human: 58%

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

How we know this

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

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. 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

1 task

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

Conducting literature reviews
This is reading one thing and writing another: literature reviews in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Conduct literature reviews.” (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: Searching, reading and summarizing published research is exactly the kind of work these tools handle well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.

Changing shape

4 tasks

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

Informing and responding to public regarding wildlife and conservation issues
The software now makes the first pass at public regarding wildlife, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Inform and respond to public regarding wildlife and conservation issues, such as plant identification, hunting ordinances, and nuisance wildlife.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Most public questions about species, hunting rules and nuisance wildlife have documented answers that can be drafted quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Disseminating information by writing reports and scientific papers or journal articles
The software now makes the first pass at information, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Disseminate information by writing reports and scientific papers or journal articles, and by making presentations and giving talks for schools, clubs, interest groups and park interpretive programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (44–52 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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 reports and papers suits drafting tools well; the talks still need a person in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analyzing characteristics of animals to identify and classify them
The software now makes the first pass at characteristics of animals, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Analyze characteristics of animals to identify and classify them.” (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: Identifying and classifying species from measurements and photographs is something software now does well, with experts checking odd cases.
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.
Studying characteristics of animals, such as origin, interrelationships, classification, life histories, diseases, development, genetics and distribution
The software now makes the first pass at characteristics of animals, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Study characteristics of animals, such as origin, interrelationships, classification, life histories, diseases, development, genetics, and distribution.” (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: Much of what is known about classification, life histories and genetics is published, though new findings need real study.
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.

Staying human

9 tasks

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

Inventorying or estimating plant and wildlife populations
This work happens in the physical world: plant, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Inventory or estimate plant and wildlife populations.” (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: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Counting methods and statistics are well known, but somebody still has to walk the transect and do the counting.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing or making recommendations
The value here is that a specific person handles recommendations and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop, or make recommendations on, management systems and plans for wildlife populations and habitat, consulting with stakeholders and the public at large to explore options.” (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: Draft management plans can be produced, but the choices depend on local conditions and on bringing landowners and the public along.
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.
Checking for and ensuring compliance with, environmental laws and notifying law enforcement when violations
This work happens in the physical world: and ensuring compliance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Check for, and ensure compliance with, environmental laws, and notify law enforcement when violations are identified.” (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 same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: The rules are written down, but confirming a breach usually means checking the site and standing behind the finding.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Studying animals in their natural habitats
This work happens in the physical world: animals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Study animals in their natural habitats, assessing effects of environment and industry on animals, interpreting findings and recommending alternative operating conditions for industry.” (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: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Half of this is fieldwork watching animals; the analysis and recommendations afterwards are desk work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Performing administrative duties, such as fundraising, public relations, budgeting and supervision of zoo staff
The value here is that a specific person handles administrative duties and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Perform administrative duties, such as fundraising, public relations, budgeting, and supervision of zoo staff.” (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: Budgets and press material can be drafted, but fundraising and managing staff depend on real relationships.
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.

Show the other 4 tasks

Coordinating preventive programs to control the outbreak of wildlife diseases
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: preventive programs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Coordinate preventive programs to control the outbreak of wildlife diseases.” (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: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Disease control plans can be drafted, but coordinating vaccination and culling work happens on the ground.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Organizing and conducting experimental studies with live animals in controlled or natural surroundings
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: experimental studies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Organize and conduct experimental studies with live animals in controlled or natural surroundings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Study designs can be drafted, but running experiments with live animals happens in the pen or the field.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Preparing collections of preserved specimens or microscopic slides for species identification and study of development or disease
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: collections of preserved specimens, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Prepare collections of preserved specimens or microscopic slides for species identification and study of development or disease.” (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.
The rating behind it: Preserving specimens and preparing microscope slides is careful hand work at the bench.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collecting and dissecting animal specimens and examining specimens under microscope
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: animal specimens, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Collect and dissect animal specimens and examine specimens under microscope.” (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.
The rating behind it: Collecting and dissecting specimens is physical work with scalpel and microscope.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $76,780a 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: 18,120in 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: literature reviews in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: conducting literature reviews and informing and responding to public regarding wildlife and conservation issues. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where plant gets done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

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

Start with what does not change: inventorying or estimating plant and wildlife populations is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 7% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 35% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 58% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 14 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. Conducting literature reviews 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 literature reviews, 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 plant 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 informing and responding to public regarding wildlife and conservation issues. 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 zoologists and wildlife biologists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was fish and game wardens: only about 2% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 36/100 here, with only 7% of the task list in the top band, and “inventory or estimate plant and wildlife populations” 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.

Fish and Game Wardens
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already check for, and ensure compliance with, environmental laws, and notify law enforcement when…, and their equivalent is to provide assistance to other local law enforcement agencies as required. 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.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Animal Trainers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already organize and conduct experimental studies with live animals in controlled or natural surroundings, and their equivalent is to organize or conduct animal shows. Across both published task lists that is about 1% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 1% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $39,990 against your $76,780, 47.9% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Animal Control Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the overall shape of the two task lists, but nothing in your day matched a specific piece of theirs closely enough to name.
Why I am not recommending it: The two task lists look alike from a distance and share almost nothing close up: no single piece of their work matched a piece of yours. That is a resemblance, not a route. It is a pay cut, in those words: $45,660 against your $76,780, 40.5% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

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

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 7% of its task weight, across 14 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 inventorying or estimating plant and wildlife populations 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 Other researchers, unspecified discipline 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 Other researchers, unspecified discipline, Natural and social science professionals n.e.c., Biochemists and biomedical scientists and Biological scientists. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

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

Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
American Job Center locator
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
- CareerOneStop local help hub
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop
Free

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

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for zoologists / wildlife biologists, 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 7% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.

Try The AI Authority free →

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

The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for zoologists / wildlife biologists. 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 zoologists / wildlife biologists launches. Nothing else.

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

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

No Space for zoologists / wildlife biologists yet. Should there be one?

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

What a Space actually is, in full

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

Your email

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

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

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

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 14 official task statements scored for Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists (United States, SOC 19-1023), 7% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 36 out of 100 (range 30–42, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Conduct literature reviews” (83/100, very high); “Analyze characteristics of animals to identify and classify them” (56/100, partial); “Disseminate information by writing reports and scientific papers or journal articles, and by making presentations and giving talks for schools, clubs, intere…” (48/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists” stay human?: About 58% 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: “Collect and dissect animal specimens and examine specimens under microscope” (0/100, minimal); “Prepare collections of preserved specimens or microscopic slides for species identification and study of development or disease” (0/100, minimal); “Organize and conduct experimental studies with live animals in controlled or natural surroundings” (13/100, 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 “Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 7% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 58% 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 Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists 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 14 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.

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

Using these figures?

Cite this

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

Plain text

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

BibTeX

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

Permalink

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

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