Skip to content
man bot
Compare

Technicians and associate professionals · code 3111

Chemical and physical science technicians

AI can analyse the results. Preparing the samples is still careful handwork.

Four of the six tasks are mostly out of AI's reach, including checking lab supplies and running instruments. Collecting samples and preparing materials it barely touches.

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

Chemical and physical science technicians perform technical tasks to aid in research in chemistry, physics, geology, geophysics, meteorology and astronomy, and in the development of industrial, medical, military and other practical applications of research results. Tasks include - (a) collecting samples and preparing materials and equipment for experiments, tests and analyses; (b) carrying out routine laboratory tests and performing a variety of technical support functions to assist chemical and physical scientists in research, development, analysis and testing; (c) controlling the quality and quantity of laboratory supplies by testing samples and monitoring usage and preparing detailed estimates of quantities and costs of materials and labour required for projects, according to the specifications given; (d) setting up, operating, and maintaining laboratory instruments and equipment, monitoring experiments, making observations, and calculating and recording results; (e) preparing materials for experimentation such as freezing and slicing specimens and mixing chemicals; (f) collecting and testing earth and water samples, recording observations and analysing data in support of geologists or geophysicists. Examples of the occupations classified here: - Chemistry technician - Geology technician - Meteorology technician - Physics technician Some related occupations classified elsewhere: - Chemical engineering technician - 3116 - Chemical process technician - 3133 - Life science technician - 3141

  • nuclear technician
  • geology technician
  • leather laboratory technician
  • environmental technician
  • remote sensing technician
  • chemistry technician
  • meteorology technician
  • soil surveying technician
  • hydrographic surveying technician
  • food analyst
  • radiation protection technician
  • physics technician
  • metrology technician
  • material testing technician

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

74 / 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: Not Exposed

203 of 427 for holding up against AI

Why this score?

The ILO rated each of this job's 6 tasks for how much of it AI could do. They average 25.8 out of 100, so it holds up at 100 − 25.8 = 74.2.

That's the whole sum. No black box, no secret sauce: you can check it against the ILO's study. ILO group “Not Exposed”: None of this job's tasks scored high enough to count.

This job rates 48.2 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?

Chemical and physical science technicians 74

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.

  • Routine testing on automated instruments.
  • Data analysis and calculations.
  • Supply tracking.

Man

What people still do better

Judgement, trust and skilled hands. Hard to download.

  • Collecting and preparing samples.
  • Setting up and fixing equipment.
  • Spotting results that don't look right.

Both

What's arriving

New work that only exists because the AI does.

  • Running automated and robotic labs.
  • Environmental monitoring.
  • Checking AI-analysed results.

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: Medium

40 could do without you

It could take over some of the work, and help with more. It could help with 72 of 100.

The robot

The wildcard. Has hands, still working out stairs.

How much it matters here: Some

48 how hands-on

A fair part of this job is hands-on, so robots would be needed for that part, not just software.

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 33 out of 100. The higher it is, the longer the robot waits.

48 How
hands-on
33 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 4 US jobs .

finger skill 40.8 · hand skill 36.3 · cramped spaces 20.9 · 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 41, against an average of 26. The bigger the gap, the more lopsided the job: some of it wide open to AI, some of it barely touched.

  1. 41

    Controlling the quality and quantity of laboratory supplies by testing samples and monitoring usage and preparing detailed estimates of quantities and costs of materials and labour required for projects, according to the specifications given

    Low
  2. 29

    Setting up, operating, and maintaining laboratory instruments and equipment, monitoring experiments, making observations, and calculating and recording results

    Low
  3. 27

    Collecting and testing earth and water samples, recording observations and analysing data in support of geologists or geophysicists.

    Low
  4. 26

    Carrying out routine laboratory tests and performing a variety of technical support functions to assist chemical and physical scientists in research, development, analysis and testing

    Low
  5. 17

    Collecting samples and preparing materials and equipment for experiments, tests and analyses

    Very Low
  6. 15

    Preparing materials for experimentation such as freezing and slicing specimens and mixing chemicals

    Very Low

6 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
72
AI does it for you
40

Sidekick wins, by 32 points.

How good a match is this?

One Australian job matches, but only partly: not everyone in it does this job. 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 3114

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

65
35

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 0.83% of the conversations.

The data is sorted by US job, and this one matches 3 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 lab technicians be worried?

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

Parts of it are changing. Quality control of supplies, running instruments and routine tests are the most exposed tasks, all Low; collecting and preparing samples rate Very Low. Lab automation and AI analysis are spreading, so technicians spend more time preparing, checking and running systems.

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 82 jobs in the “Technicians and associate professionals” family, averaging 65. This one is above the family average.

Pit this against any other job →