Free sampler. Re-scored every six months.
Clinical and field research scores 5.0 out of 10 for AI exposure, where 10 is most at risk. Wet lab research scores 5.2. Bioinformatics — the computational, tech-forward branch — scores 7.1, and a biology degree with no further qualification scores 7.2. Life sciences is the field where the terminal is more exposed than the bench, which is the opposite of what most students assume.
The short answer for parents: a biology degree is a foundation rather than a destination, and it matters enormously what gets built on it. The protected work is hands-on, in a lab or a field, with judgment about physical systems. The exposed work is analysis at a screen — which is exactly where many students believe the future lies.
Every career in this index is scored 1–10, where 10 is most exposed to AI. Same six factors, same weights, applied identically to a research scientist and a paramedic.
| Life Sciences track | 2023 | 2025 | Now | 3-yr move | Band |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical trials / field research | 4.2 | 4.6 | 5.0 | +0.8 | Moderate |
| Wet lab research scientist | 4.5 | 4.8 | 5.2 | +0.7 | Moderate |
| Regulatory / QA in pharma | 5.0 | 5.4 | 5.8 | +0.8 | Moderate |
| Laboratory technician | 5.6 | 5.9 | 6.3 | +0.7 | Mod–High |
| Bioinformatics / computational biology | 6.3 | 6.7 | 7.1 | +0.8 | High |
| Degree only, no further qualification | 6.4 | 6.8 | 7.2 | +0.8 | High |
2023 and 2025 figures are reconstructed using current methodology, not archived from past editions.
For scalethe median career in this edition scores around 5.5. Bedside nursing scores 2.8. A business analyst scores 7.6. Entry-level software development scores 8.1.
Nothing in this field scores in the low band, which surprises people who think of biology as a science degree with medical-adjacent safety. It is not medicine. Medicine's protection comes from licensure, physical patient contact and legal accountability, and biology has none of the three.
It is transforming what research looks like, in both directions at once.
This field is unusual in that AI is simultaneously a threat and a demand driver. Computational biology and drug discovery are growing precisely because these tools work — which creates jobs while automating a large share of the work inside them.
How wet lab research rates against each. Ratings are 0–10 on each factor's own terms.
So you can see what the analysis actually looks like.
Does it have to be done in person, with your hands? — rated 7.5
Students choosing between wet lab and computational biology usually assume the computational route is the modern, future-proof one. Our scoring says the opposite, and this factor is why.
Wet lab work rates 7.5. Experiments are physical. Someone has to prepare samples, run the protocol, handle the equipment, and — critically — notice when something has gone wrong in a way the data will not reveal. A contaminated culture, a mislabeled tube, a reagent that has degraded. This is embodied craft knowledge, and it is why experienced bench scientists are valuable in ways that do not appear on a CV.
Bioinformatics rates 1.0. Inputs are data. Outputs are analysis and code. There is no physical component, no licensed accountability, and no requirement for anyone to be anywhere. That combination has produced the highest scores in this index everywhere it appears — and computational biology is not exempt because its subject matter is important.
The uncomfortable version: protein structure prediction, sequence annotation and much of standard genomic analysis are now substantially automated, and were among the earliest scientific tasks to be. A student choosing bioinformatics because it is technical and modern may be choosing the most exposed part of their own discipline.
This pattern recurs across the index and it is worth naming. In agriculture, precision agtech scores worse than field farming. In veterinary medicine, lab diagnostics scores worse than practice. In allied health, imaging analysis scores worse than hands-on therapy. The technology-forward version of a physical profession is consistently more exposed than the physical version, because adopting the technology means moving toward the work the technology does.
The general lesson: "modern" and "protected" are not the same thing. Ask where the work physically happens, not how advanced it sounds.
Ranked by exposure, safest first:
It depends almost entirely on what follows it, and this is the field where that is most true.
The degree alone scores 7.2 — the same story as psychology. Biology is one of the most-taken science degrees, and the majority of graduates do not work as biologists. Without a postgraduate route or a specific technical specialization, it leads to the general graduate market.
The routes that hold up:
And one honest note on demand: AI-driven drug discovery is genuinely creating jobs. Some of them are the most interesting work in the sector. Most of them require a doctorate and computational skill, and they sit in the part of the field our scoring rates most exposed. Both things are true, and a student should understand that the growth and the exposure are in the same place.
Worth asking any program: what proportion of graduates go on to postgraduate study or into laboratory roles, and what are the rest doing five years out?
This sampler tells you where life sciences stands. The full profile tells you what to do about it.
Most families are weighing two or three careers seriously, and a few more they haven’t ruled out. Pick the ones you need.
Each includes a short version written directly to the student and the technical scoring appendix. Spring 2027 updates of whatever you buy are included.
Read one complete profile free → We publish computer science in full so you can judge the depth before buying anything.