Will AI replace biologists?

Not replace, but it is changing the job. About 1h 52m of an 8-hour shift goes to tasks touched by robots. The breakdown: 29m that AI mostly does alone, 1h 23m that robots have done in real workplaces. The other 6h 7m (77%) stays with people. Separately, BLS expects about 4.7% more of these jobs by 2035 (all jobs: +3.5%).

AI shows up regularly in 2 of 22 tasks, about 29m of a typical shift. The biggest ones:

• Study basic principles of plant and animal life, such as origin, relationship, development, anatomy, and function. (18m a shift, AI mostly does it alone)
• Study aquatic plants and animals and environmental conditions affecting them, such as radioactivity or pollution. (12m a shift, AI mostly does it alone)

For some tasks, yes. Robots have done 2 of this job's tasks in workplaces like this one, about 1h 23m of a typical shift. 3 more tasks have only been done in factory setups built around the machine, so they stay with people here. For 2 physical tasks, no robot has shown it can do the work yet.

• Collect and analyze biological data about relationships among and between organisms and their environment. (1h 17m a shift; e.g. Saildrone USV with Simrad EK80 echosounder, in use)
• Measure salinity, acidity, light, oxygen content, and other physical conditions of water to determine their relationship to aquatic life. (6m a shift; e.g. BGC-Argo profiling floats (Argo program), in use)

6h 7m of a typical shift, or 77%, goes to tasks with no AI or robot evidence yet. No AI usage or robot deployment has shown up for these so far. The biggest:

• Prepare technical and research reports, such as environmental impact reports, and communicate the results to individuals in industry, government, or the general public. (1h 5m a shift)
• Program and use computers to store, process, and analyze data. (53m a shift)
• Develop and maintain liaisons and effective working relations with groups and individuals, agencies, and the public to encourage cooperative management strategies or to develop information and interpret findings. (36m a shift)
• Identify, classify, and study structure, behavior, ecology, physiology, nutrition, culture, and distribution of plant and animal species. (36m a shift)
• Supervise biological technicians and technologists and other scientists. (30m a shift)

Part of the answer is the setting, not just the tasks. Work that is in person, hands on or high stakes is where AI and robots have made the least headway so far. In the official O*NET survey of people in this job:

• 59% say dealing with the public is very or extremely important
• 55% carry high or very high responsibility for other workers' safety

For the 1 task in this job where AI shows up and timing data exists, a typical request takes about 1h 11m for a person alone and about 10m with AI. These are Claude's own estimates from real conversations in April and May 2026 (Anthropic Economic Index). They describe single requests, not whole workdays, and time saved on a task doesn't mean jobs are cut. The biggest gaps:

• Study basic principles of plant and animal life, such as origin, relationship, development, anatomy, and function (about 1h 11m alone, 10m with AI)

On Indeed, job postings in the Scientific Research & Development sector are at 84% of their February 2020 level (all U.S. postings: 104%), up 19.9% from a year earlier, as of Oct 9, 2026. BLS separately expects about 4,300 openings a year in this job through 2035. Across all U.S. postings, 7.3% now mention AI skills. Sector postings cover more than this one job and move for many reasons besides AI.

The median pay is about $98,920 a year ($47.56 an hour), 94% above the median for all U.S. jobs ($50,980). Most people in this job earn between $60,430 and $168,010 a year; that range covers the middle 80%. Pay figures are from BLS, May 2025, and vary a lot by state and employer. Pick a state to compare:

BLS projects growth of 4.7% from 2025 to 2035, compared with 3.5% growth for all jobs. That's about 62,000 jobs in 2035. It expects about 4,300 openings a year, mostly from people retiring or changing careers. These projections don't single out AI as a cause.

About 56,000 people in the U.S., roughly 0.04% of all workers (BLS, May 2025). That makes it the 369th largest of the 796 jobs on this site. BLS expects about 62,000 in 2035.

The most common requirement is a master's degree: about 55% of people in the job said so in the official O*NET survey. O*NET rates the job at level 5 of 5 for preparation, which usually means: graduate degree. Requirements vary by state and employer, especially for licensed work.

These come from the job's official skill ratings and from the tasks that AI and robots touch least today. Building them keeps you strong in the parts of the work that still need a person:

• Skills that matter more here than in most jobs: Science, Programming, Mathematics, Writing
• Get strong at the parts of the job that stay with people (listed above), which take 6h 7m of a typical shift
• Tools employers list: R, Python, Microsoft Office software, Microsoft Excel, Adobe Photoshop
• Learn to use AI well on the tasks where it already shows up in this job (listed above)

Yes. Occupational experts recently added these to the official task list, a sign of how the work itself is shifting. New tasks aren't rated for AI or robots yet:

• Inventory and order lab supplies.

These use similar skills, with less of a typical shift touched by AI or robots. Matches come from 109 official ratings of skills, knowledge and work activities, and each needs the same or less preparation unless the official list relates the jobs directly:

• Soil and Plant Scientists (1h 21m touched, $79k median pay)
• Biochemists and Biophysicists (43m touched, $127k median pay)
• Microbiologists (1h 10m touched, $88k median pay)
• Molecular and Cellular Biologists (21m touched, $99k median pay)
• Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists (18m touched, $77k median pay)

Each task carries its own evidence label. For this job: 2 observed in real AI use, 2 with robots in real deployments, 18 with no AI or robot evidence found. The minutes per task are estimates, not measured hours, and "no evidence" doesn't prove a task is safe.