Skip to content
man bot
Compare

Professionals · code 2131

Biologists, botanists, zoologists and related professionals

AI can predict how a protein folds. Catching a newt at night is still a biologist.

Writing up research and advising on conservation are where AI could take a fair chunk. Classifying and tracking living things is mostly out of its reach, and collecting specimens in the field it barely touches.

What they actually do (and what else they get called)

Biologists, botanists, zoologists and related professionals study living organisms and their interactions with each other and with the environment, and apply this knowledge to solving human health and environmental problems. They work in diverse fields such as botany, zoology, ecology, marine biology, genetics, immunology, pharmacology, toxicology, physiology, bacteriology and virology. Tasks include - (a) undertaking research in laboratories and in the field to increase scientific knowledge of living organisms, to discover new information, to test hypotheses, to solve problems in areas such as the environment, agriculture and health, and to develop new products, processes and techniques for pharmaceutical, agricultural and environmental use; (b) designing and conducting experiments and tests; (c) gathering human, animal, insect and plant specimens and data, and studying their origin, development, chemical and physical form, structure, composition, and life and reproductive processes; (d) examining living organisms using a variety of specialized equipment, instruments, technologies and techniques such as electron microscopes, telemetry, global positioning systems, biotechnology, satellite imaging, genetic engineering, digital imaging analysis, polymerase chain reaction and computer modelling; (e) identifying, classifying, recording and monitoring living organisms and maintaining databases; (f) writing scientific papers and reports detailing research and any new findings which are then made available to the scientific community in scientific journals or at conferences for scrutiny and further debate; (g) designing and carrying out environmental impact assessments to identify changes caused by natural or human factors; (h) providing advice to governments, organizations and businesses in areas such as conservation, management of natural resources, and the effects of climate change and pollution. Examples of the occupations classified here: - Animal behaviourist - Bacteriologist - Biochemist - Biologist - Biomedical researcher - Biotechnologist - Botanist - Cell geneticist - Marine biologist - Microbiologist - Molecular biologist - Molecular geneticist - Pharmacologist - Zoologist Some related occupations classified elsewhere: - Ecologist - 2133 Notes Medical research professionals who participate in biomedical research using living organisms and do not undertake clinical practice are classified in Unit Group 2131: Biologists, Botanists, Zoologists and Related Professionals. Those who also undertake clinical practice are classified in Minor Group 221: Medical Doctors.

  • immunologist
  • food biotechnologist
  • animal behaviourist
  • biologist
  • animal feed nutritionist
  • pharmacologist
  • bioinformatics scientist

Job titles from the EU's ESCO list. Search for any of them on the jobs page and you'll end up here.

60 / 100

Mostly holds up against AI

AI can take a few chores off your plate, but most of the day is still yours.

Not the odds you keep your job. It's how much of the everyday work still needs a person, out of 100.

← Robot's turf Human's turf →

The ILO's official verdict: Exposed: Gradient 2

329 of 427 for holding up against AI

Why this score?

The ILO rated each of this job's 8 tasks for how much of it AI could do. They average 39.7 out of 100, so it holds up at 100 − 39.7 = 60.3.

That's the whole sum. No black box, no secret sauce: you can check it against the ILO's study. ILO group “Exposed: Gradient 2”: A good share of the tasks are affected.

This job rates 37.1 out of 100 for how hands-on it is. The score above only looks at AI tools, not robots, but for work this far from the physical that matters less.

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use

Man v Bot · compare

Who holds up better?

Biologists, botanists, zoologists and related professionals 60

v

Go on, try your partner's job. Or your sibling's. We won't tell.

Man v Bot

Where the bot helps, and where the human wins

Bot

What AI takes

The routine stuff. You may not miss it.

  • Writing papers and reports.
  • Analysing data and sequences.
  • Species identification from images.

Man

What people still do better

Judgement, trust and skilled hands. Hard to download.

  • Fieldwork and collecting specimens.
  • Designing experiments.
  • Advising on conservation.

Both

What's arriving

New work that only exists because the AI does.

  • AI in biology and drug discovery.
  • eDNA and acoustic monitoring.
  • Biodiversity net gain.

Written by a human, from the ILO's task ratings below. Yes, we see the irony. Read it as one person's take.

Meet your two rivals

They're not the same machine. AI software can only reach the parts of a job done on a screen or in words. A chatbot can't climb a ladder. A robot might, one day, if it doesn't fall off.

The AI

Lives in a screen. Never had to fix a boiler.

Threat level: Low

33 could do without you

It could take over very little of the work on its own. It could help with 73 of 100.

The robot

The wildcard. Has hands, still working out stairs.

How much it matters here: Lower

37 how hands-on

Not much of this job needs hands, so the robot can sit this one out.

So could a robot do the physical part?

Less than half of this job is hands-on. Robots still matter, but for a smaller part of the work, so we don't sort it any further.

Robots hate fiddly work in awkward spaces. On that measure, this job scores 24 out of 100. The higher it is, the longer the robot waits.

37 How
hands-on
24 How fiddly
and cramped

Kind of hands-on work Less than half hands-on

The small print

They aren't a robot score, and nothing on this page is. Nobody measures how far robots have got well enough to put a number on it. These are the closest thing we have: how hands-on the job is, and how much fiddly, cramped work it takes, which is what Frey and Osborne found hardest for machines.

From O*NET, averaged across 12 US jobs , so treat it as rough.

finger skill 32.8 · hand skill 22.7 · cramped spaces 14.9 · averaged · rule: hands-on under 50

estimated O*NET 31.0 BLS occupational crosswalk chain ISCO-08 to 2010 SOC (Aug 2012, rev. Jun 2015); 2010 to 2018 SOC (Nov 2017); O*NET-SOC 2019 taxonomy data 0.8-observed-use measures chosen by Frey & Osborne (2017) · the grouping is a sorting, not a measurement

The job, task by task

Every job is really a bundle of tasks. Here's this one unpacked, with how much of each AI could do, out of 100. The score is the average, and averages can hide a lot.

AI's favourite task here scores 52, against an average of 40. The bigger the gap, the more lopsided the job: some of it wide open to AI, some of it barely touched.

  1. 52

    Writing scientific papers and reports detailing research and any new findings which are then made available to the scientific community in scientific journals or at conferences for scrutiny and further debate

    Medium
  2. 50

    Providing advice to governments, organizations and businesses in areas such as conservation, management of natural resources, the effects of climate change and pollution.

    Medium
  3. 47

    Designing and conducting experiments and tests

    Low
  4. 47

    Designing and carrying out environmental impact assessments to identify changes caused by natural or human factors

    Low
  5. 35

    Examining living organisms using a variety of specialised equipment, instruments, technologies and techniques such as electron microscopes, telemetry, global positioning systems, biotechnology, satellite imaging, genetic engineering, digital imaging analysis, polymerase chain reaction and computer modelling

    Low
  6. 34

    Undertaking research in laboratories and in the field to increase scientific knowledge of living organisms; to discover new information; to test hypotheses; to solve problems in areas such as the environment, agriculture and health; and to develop new products, processes and techniques for pharmaceutical, agricultural and environmental use

    Low
  7. 31

    Identifying, classifying, recording and monitoring living organisms and maintaining databases

    Low
  8. 23

    Gathering human, animal, insect and plant specimens and data, and studying their origin, development, chemical and physical form, structure, composition, and life and reproductive processes

    Very Low

8 tasks · the High to Very Low labels are the ILO's

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use

Sidekick or replacement?

A tool that makes you faster is a very different thing from one that does the task while you watch. Jobs and Skills Australia measured the two separately, which is handy.

AI helps you
73
AI does it for you
33

Sidekick wins, by 40 points.

How good a match is this?

3 Australian jobs match this one, and we've simply averaged them. Treat the numbers as a rough guide.

estimated Our Gen AI Transition (Gen AI Capacity Study) September 2025 detailed data release data 0.8-observed-use matched to Australian jobs 2341, 2345, 2346

Meanwhile, in real life…

Everything else here is about what AI could do. This is what people actually did. When they asked Claude for help with this kind of work, did they hand the whole task over, or roll their sleeves up and work through it together?

Out of every 100 conversations

49
51

worked through it together handed it over

The small print

Anthropic publishes this about its own product, and it doesn't feed into any score here. These are people who use Claude, not workers in general, so little use here doesn't mean AI can't reach the job. This job makes up 0.67% of the conversations.

The data is sorted by US job, and this one matches 10 of them. We've combined them, counting each by how often it comes up in the conversations, so the busiest one counts most.

These two add up to 100. The bars elsewhere on the page don't, because each is scored on its own, so we don't put them side by side.

observed use Anthropic Economic Index release 2026-06-26, period beginning 2026-05-01 data 0.8-observed-use 2026-05-01 · Anthropic, about its own product

So, should biologists be worried?

Short answer: not much. Some of the chores will change, and good riddance.

Parts of the work are changing. Writing papers and giving advice are rated Medium; experiments, impact assessments, examining organisms, research and monitoring are Low; gathering specimens rates Very Low. AI speeds up analysis and writing; field and lab work stay human.

Worth remembering: we score tasks, not jobs. When AI takes on a task, the job usually reshuffles around it rather than vanishing.

Where this job could lead

None of the new jobs we've written up start from here yet. Could be you're the first. See the jobs AI is creating →

How are the neighbours doing?

There are 92 jobs in the “Professionals” family, averaging 61. This one is below the family average.

Pit this against any other job →