← Risk register SOC 19-1042 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists

172,340 US workers · median $103,410/yr · Science

EXPOSED

A large slice of the day — literature review, grant boilerplate, manuscript drafting, statistical analysis, protocol writing, sequence and image data processing — is exactly what current models do at usable quality, and AI-driven hypothesis generation is compressing the design tier too. What holds is the wet-bench and vivarium reality: running assays, handling cell lines and animal models, troubleshooting a failed experiment at the bench, and owning the call on whether a result is real. Licensure is not required for research itself (only clinical-trial PI roles lean on an MD), so the regulatory shield is thin — IRB and FDA accountability, not personal licensure.

10-year outlook: Headcount holds but shifts: fewer positions doing analysis-and-writing work, more concentrated in bench execution, platform operation, and translational decision-making, with output per scientist rising sharply.

Score — 49/100 resistance

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 10 + 12 + 6 + 7 + 14 = 49.

Task resistance 10/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier. Roughly half your week — pulling PubMed, drafting R01 aims and specific-aims boilerplate, writing methods sections, running DESeq2/flow gating pipelines, batch-analyzing imaging data — is already reproducible by current models, while pipetting a finicky co-IP, salvaging a contaminated primary culture, and reading an unexpected Western are not, which is why this sits at 10 rather than in the resistant band.

Embodiment 12/20

Some physical or field component. A 12 reflects that the bench is physical but climate-controlled: BSL-2 hoods, cryostorage, mouse colony handling, IACUC surgeries and perfusions, and hours at a confocal — real hands, real animals, but a fixed room with SOPs, not a field site or a patient's home.

Liability shield 6/20

Certification preferred, not legally required. No licence gates the work — a PhD and institutional appointment are what let you run a lab — so the 6 comes entirely from the certification layer around you: IACUC/IRB approvals, BSL and radiation-safety training, CITI, and GLP/GCP sign-offs that attach to protocols and institutions rather than to your personal credential.

Trust premium 7/20

Some relationship component. Manuscripts and grants are judged by anonymous peer review on the data, not on who you are, but a 7 accounts for the parts that are relational — the program officer you call before resubmission, long-running collaborator and core-facility relationships, and the trainees who chose your lab.

Judgment & accountability 14/20

Exists to be accountable for ambiguous calls. A 14 is earned by the calls nobody can procedure for you: whether an n=3 effect is real or a batch artifact, when to kill a two-year project line, which control the reviewer will demand, whether to report a finding that contradicts your own prior paper, and signing off that animal numbers and endpoints in the IACUC protocol are scientifically justified.

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

Tasks already automatable

What survives

Active moats: embodiment, judgment

How to future-proof this job

Escape hatches — adjacent fields with better verdicts

Computed from U.S. Dept. of Labor O*NET skill profiles: high overlap with what you already do, materially higher resistance score.

Anesthesiologists SAFE · 89/100 · you already have ~77% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Operation and Control, Operations Monitoring, Social Perceptiveness, Time Management

Veterinary Technologists and Technicians SAFE · 68/100 · you already have ~53% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Equipment Maintenance, Repairing, Troubleshooting, Operation and Control

Surgical Assistants SAFE · 69/100 · you already have ~50% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Operation and Control, Operations Monitoring, Quality Control Analysis

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.