← Risk register SOC 19-1099 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Life Scientists, All Other

7,460 US workers · median $93,750/yr · Science

EXPOSED

This is a catch-all bucket — biosecurity analysts, ecological researchers, lab-based bioinformatics and regulatory science staff — and the modal worker splits time between bench or field protocols and screen work: literature synthesis, dataset cleaning, statistical runs, manuscript and grant drafting. The screen half is exactly what LLMs and AutoML now do at usable quality, which compresses the analyst tier hard. What persists is hands-on assay execution, field sampling in messy conditions, and deciding which experiment is actually worth running and whether a result is real.

10-year outlook: By 2035 the pure data-analysis and writing portion of these roles is largely AI-assisted, and headcount concentrates in people who run physical experiments, collect field data, and are accountable for what the results mean.

Score — 43/100 resistance

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 10 + 11 + 4 + 6 + 12 = 43.

Task resistance 10/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier. Sequence QC, differential-expression pipelines, literature triage for a review, and first-draft methods sections are already handed to tooling in most labs in this bucket, but designing an assay that discriminates between two competing mechanisms, troubleshooting why the western blot failed on the third replicate, and running a field transect still take a person — a roughly even split, which is why this sits at 10 rather than in the resistant band.

Embodiment 11/20

Some physical or field component. Bench work here is pipetting, culture maintenance, dissection, and instrument runs in a controlled BSL-1/2 lab, with periodic field sampling — soil cores, water grabs, trapping — that is genuinely uncontrolled but seasonal rather than daily, so it lands above pure desk science and below the year-round outdoor roles that score 15+.

Liability shield 4/20

No licence, no signature requirement. No state licence gates the title: you can run this work with a PhD or a master's and nobody countersigns your results, and the constraints that do exist — IRB and IACUC approval, select-agent registration, IBC review — attach to the institution and the protocol, not to your name, so the 4 reflects committee oversight rather than personal legal exposure.

Trust premium 6/20

Some relationship component. Your outputs are peer-reviewed papers, agency reports, and internal data packages that are judged on the numbers rather than on who produced them, though sustained relationships with a program officer, a collaborating field agency, or a long-running study site do carry weight that a stranger cannot instantly replicate — enough for 6, not the named-advisor dependence of clinical or consulting roles.

Judgment & accountability 12/20

Meaningful discretion. You decide when a surprising result is an artefact versus a finding, whether the effect size justifies another year of sampling, and how to word an uncertainty caveat that a regulator or a biosecurity customer will act on — real discretion with real consequences, but almost always filtered through PIs, co-authors, and reviewers before it binds anyone, which caps it at 12.

Confidence: low · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

Tasks already automatable

What survives

Active moats: embodiment, judgment

How to future-proof this job

Field report — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work?

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

From people who do this job

Nobody has filed one yet. If you do this work, you know things the rubric can't see.

What has actually changed in your work?

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.