Opens in a new tab
needsahuman.
Search ⌘KGet the data

Will AI replace life scientists?

16 jobs scored. On average 63% of the task time in these jobs still needs a person, and the family averages 74 out of 100 on Still needs a human, where higher is safer.

74
Average Still needs a human score, 0 to 100 ↑ safer. Will AI replace them? A little.
16
Jobs scored in this family
63%
Average share of that still needs a person
599k
US workers in these jobs

How the work could shift in Life Scientists

The share of US workers in these jobs whose job would sit in each band, from today to 2060.

Today
5%
of US workers in this family are in jobs that mostly need a person (our top band, Nah.)
0% are in jobs AI could largely do (Largely.)
By 2045
1%
of US workers in this family would still be in jobs that mostly need a person (our top band, Nah.)
63% would be in jobs AI could largely do (Largely.)
By 2060
1%
of US workers in this family would still be in jobs that mostly need a person (our top band, Nah.)
93% would be in jobs AI could largely do (Largely.)

Each job's score moves towards the bottom band (Largely: AI could largely do the job) by the year it could be largely automated, slowly at first and faster later, as adoption usually goes. Each job is run as ten scenarios across its replacement range, so every figure mixes early and late outcomes. The model stops at 2060. How the timeline works

Share of US workers in this family in each verdict band, today to 20600%25%50%75%100%2026: 5.0% of US workers in this family in jobs that mostly need a person (Nah.)2026: 95.0% of US workers in this family in jobs where AI could do a little of the work (A little.)95%Today2030: 0.5% of US workers in this family in jobs that mostly need a person (Nah.)2030: 84.7% of US workers in this family in jobs where AI could do a little of the work (A little.)85%2030: 14.8% of US workers in this family in jobs AI could partly do (Partly.)15%20302035: 0.5% of US workers in this family in jobs that mostly need a person (Nah.)2035: 29.4% of US workers in this family in jobs where AI could do a little of the work (A little.)29%2035: 34.4% of US workers in this family in jobs AI could partly do (Partly.)34%2035: 34.6% of US workers in this family in jobs AI could mostly do (Mostly.)35%2035: 1.1% of US workers in this family in jobs AI could largely do (Largely.)20352040: 0.5% of US workers in this family in jobs that mostly need a person (Nah.)2040: 6.1% of US workers in this family in jobs where AI could do a little of the work (A little.)6%2040: 27.0% of US workers in this family in jobs AI could partly do (Partly.)27%2040: 30.1% of US workers in this family in jobs AI could mostly do (Mostly.)30%2040: 36.4% of US workers in this family in jobs AI could largely do (Largely.)36%20402045: 0.5% of US workers in this family in jobs that mostly need a person (Nah.)2045: 6.1% of US workers in this family in jobs where AI could do a little of the work (A little.)6%2045: 1.5% of US workers in this family in jobs AI could partly do (Partly.)2045: 28.9% of US workers in this family in jobs AI could mostly do (Mostly.)29%2045: 63.0% of US workers in this family in jobs AI could largely do (Largely.)63%20452050: 0.5% of US workers in this family in jobs that mostly need a person (Nah.)2050: 6.1% of US workers in this family in jobs where AI could do a little of the work (A little.)6%2050: 17.3% of US workers in this family in jobs AI could mostly do (Mostly.)17%2050: 76.2% of US workers in this family in jobs AI could largely do (Largely.)76%20502055: 0.5% of US workers in this family in jobs that mostly need a person (Nah.)2055: 6.1% of US workers in this family in jobs where AI could do a little of the work (A little.)6%2055: 0.2% of US workers in this family in jobs AI could mostly do (Mostly.)2055: 93.2% of US workers in this family in jobs AI could largely do (Largely.)93%20552060: 0.5% of US workers in this family in jobs that mostly need a person (Nah.)2060: 6.1% of US workers in this family in jobs where AI could do a little of the work (A little.)6%2060: 93.4% of US workers in this family in jobs AI could largely do (Largely.)93%2060
Will AI replace the job?Largely.Mostly.Partly.A little.Nah.
Share of US workers in this family whose job would sit in each band, year by year. Updated with every release.
Show the data
YearLargelyMostlyPartlyA littleNah
Today (2026)0.0%0.0%0.0%95.0%5.0%
20300.0%0.0%14.8%84.7%0.5%
20351.1%34.6%34.4%29.4%0.5%
204036.4%30.1%27.0%6.1%0.5%
204563.0%28.9%1.5%6.1%0.5%
205076.2%17.3%0.0%6.1%0.5%
205593.2%0.2%0.0%6.1%0.5%
206093.4%0.0%0.0%6.1%0.5%

Every job in Life Scientists, ranked

How to read a row: the number is the Still needs a human score, out of 100, higher is safer; “AI replace?” is our answer to “Will AI replace this job?”; the bar is the task split: white AI does it, grey AI helps, amber needs a human.

Bioinformatics ScientistsLife, Physical, and Social Science · 19-1029.01
61↑ saferAI replace? A little.
AI does 19%AI helps 72%Needs a human 9%
20392037–2047
56k
$98,920
GeneticistsLife, Physical, and Social Science · 19-1029.03
69↑ saferAI replace? A little.
AI does 17%AI helps 37%Needs a human 46%
20412037–2051
56k
$98,920
Animal ScientistsLife, Physical, and Social Science · 19-1011
71↑ saferAI replace? A little.
AI does 0%AI helps 54%Needs a human 46%
20422037–2051
3k
$68,940
EpidemiologistsLife, Physical, and Social Science · 19-1041
71↑ saferAI replace? A little.
AI does 5%AI helps 53%Needs a human 42%
20422037–2051
12k
$87,220
BiologistsLife, Physical, and Social Science · 19-1029.04
73↑ saferAI replace? A little.
AI does 0%AI helps 42%Needs a human 58%
20442038–2058
56k
$98,920
Zoologists and Wildlife BiologistsLife, Physical, and Social Science · 19-1023
73↑ saferAI replace? A little.
AI does 12%AI helps 18%Needs a human 70%
20442038–2059
18k
$76,780
Soil and Plant ScientistsLife, Physical, and Social Science · 19-1013
74↑ saferAI replace? A little.
AI does 6%AI helps 21%Needs a human 73%
20432038–2057
16k
$78,850
Conservation ScientistsLife, Physical, and Social Science · 19-1031
75↑ saferAI replace? A little.
AI does 0%AI helps 51%Needs a human 49%
20442038–2056
26k
$73,010
Park NaturalistsLife, Physical, and Social Science · 19-1031.03
75↑ saferAI replace? A little.
AI does 0%AI helps 37%Needs a human 63%
20442038–2059
26k
$73,010
Molecular and Cellular BiologistsLife, Physical, and Social Science · 19-1029.02
75↑ saferAI replace? A little.
AI does 0%AI helps 33%Needs a human 67%
20442039–2058
56k
$98,920
Range ManagersLife, Physical, and Social Science · 19-1031.02
76↑ saferAI replace? A little.
AI does 0%AI helps 38%Needs a human 62%
20442038–2056
26k
$73,010
Biochemists and BiophysicistsLife, Physical, and Social Science · 19-1021
76↑ saferAI replace? A little.
AI does 4%AI helps 8%Needs a human 88%
20462038–2060+
34k
$127,410
ForestersLife, Physical, and Social Science · 19-1032
76↑ saferAI replace? A little.
AI does 0%AI helps 34%Needs a human 66%
20452039–2060+
10k
$76,400
Food Scientists and TechnologistsLife, Physical, and Social Science · 19-1012
77↑ saferAI replace? A little.
AI does 0%AI helps 21%Needs a human 79%
20472038–2060+
13k
$88,720
Medical Scientists, Except EpidemiologistsLife, Physical, and Social Science · 19-1042
77↑ saferAI replace? A little.
AI does 0%AI helps 12%Needs a human 88%
20462038–2060+
172k
$103,410
MicrobiologistsLife, Physical, and Social Science · 19-1022
80↑ saferAI replace? Nah.
AI does 0%AI helps 6%Needs a human 94%
20472038–2060+
19k
$87,990