BLS data on Life Scientists

First off, a h/t to Chemjobber, who is great at navigating the Bureau of Labor Statistics to pull out depressing chemistry statistics so I that I can find a place to pull more optimistic biology numbers to share.

The BLS handbook is a great place to explore careers, and the online version makes it much easier to navigate.  Skills and work environment are matched to job growth and salary information, and linked to related jobs in a very helpful way.

So, remember last week when I found that number about huge growth for Medical Scientists?  Well, here is a little more comparative data, including projections for "Life Scientists," which is probably a more accurate description of who I am right now. 



















Life scientists are not as fast growing, nor as well paid as medical scientists- but this also seems more realistic.  In the next 20 years, BLS predicts a 36% increase in medical scientist jobs (or 36,000 jobs), and a 20% increase in Life Science jobs.  (The expected national average is closer to 17% growth in jobs.)

Compare the predicted job growth for biochemists and biophysicists, the need is expected to grow by 31%, but this is actually only 7,700 jobs.  (They make more money though).

One facet you should be aware of (before your brain explodes) is that these documents suggest that there is no on the job training for any of these positions.  What I am getting at, is that none of these numbers account for grad students or post-docs, who I totally believe deserve to call themselves scientists.  I had previously thought that this median income data included us trainees, which implies that the top of that bell curve must be set to counterbalance an army of grant-funded RAs. If that's not the case, then the top of the curve is probably not so far away, because it only includes people who actually perform experiments and still wear a lab coat sometimes.  (BLS is very systematic about their categorizations.  My old PI would not likely count as a Life Scientist, he would instead be a Post-Secondary Teacher based on what he does daily.)

Not sure what this does for my job hunt, but BLS showed me that very few jobs for people with a Ph.D. have any on-the-job training, so be sure you've learned everything you need to know to enter industry before you walk away from academia.  (Ha, I jest).

Next time you encounter a student trying to decide what to do with their life, point that at the Occupational Outlook Handbook, so they can avoid the sad fate of chemists, who believed there was a great need, and are now unemployed.

Great news for Medical Scientists, except epidimiologists!

Over at ChemJobber, there has been some interesting discussion about the derth of jobs for chemists, and many perspectives on why chemists are unemployed and what to do about it.  I'm not a chemist, but I identify with the struggle- I was also trained to do something that isn't what industry wants, and am struggling to transition that technical experience into gainful employment.  There is always a certain amount of finger pointing that "kids these days" can't get jobs because we are lazy, or that our professors pulled the wool over our eyes.  What I like about Chemjobber is that he uses numbers whenever possible- and he pointed out a Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs projection report that he pulled data from to show the shrinkage of the chemists job market.  Ouch.

So I went to look.  I used the most recent version of the same report and found some interesting things.  First of all, based on the career categories used by the BLS, I would consider myself a Medical Scientist (who is not an epidemiologist).  My previous work was to research a human disease to improve human health. Directly from the BLS Jan 2012 Monthly Labor Review:


Life, physical, and social science occupations.
Most new jobs:
Medical scientists, except epidemiologists +36,400
Fastest growing (in percent):
Medical scientists, except epidemiologists +36.4
Fastest declining (in percent):
Forest and conservation technicians –1.0
Highest paying:
Political scientists $107,420

BLS predicts and extra 36,000 jobs for Ph.D. or professional degree carrying medical scientists in the next 20 years.  It thinks the median income for these will be above $70K.

At first blush, I was baffled- if 'medical science' is growing why don't I have a job?  First, this are prediction from 2010-2020, so the growth is not over.  But, as I read the report, I realized that what is needed is scientists with clinical experience.  That's basically the missing piece in my job hunt.  I'm not sure what to do about it, but it's refreshing to have some cold hard data to put up next to my experience. 

Another interesting fact was from the table looking at employment by education level.  BLS believes that 3.1% of the country had a Ph.D. or professional degree (MD, JD etc) in 2010, and that 3.2% will in 2020.  The median income for these folks is $87,500/year.  (For reference, the median income across all education levels is $33,000/year.)