An online survey of Nature Biotechnology readers reveals lower-than-anticipated salaries and a significant portion with a younger than anticipated age.
For a period of three weeks beginning June 24, 2002, Nature Biotechnology conducted an online survey of its readers to determine information about their education, specialization, employment status, and salary. There were 1,729 total respondents, with the largest number (38%) residing in North America, a little over a quarter (27%) in Europe, and about 12% in Asia. The results show an average salary of under $50,000 (see Fig. 1). About two thirds are 39 years old or less, and more than a third are under 30 (see Fig. 2).
At first glance, these results seem somewhat imbalanced, but when they are broken down further they may in fact accurately reflect the field. It appears that scientists who are interested in biotechnology can be divided into two groups. As seen in Figure 3, the larger group is younger and more mobile—two thirds of the respondents have been with their current employer less than five years, with a quarter at one year or less. Two thirds of the respondents were with their previous employer for less than five years. The smaller group is more senior, better paid, and more likely to have one foot in the academic world and another in the commercial.
Figure 3. Length of time spent with (A) current employer and (B) previous employer.
Almost half the respondents have been with their current employer 2 years or less.
The young-looking results may also have something to do with methodology; online surveys tend to skew young, and, of course, young scientists tend to earn less. That point is emphasized further when one risks accusations of comparing apples to oranges by looking at results of other surveys.
Salary surprise The $50,000 average salary figure seems low compared to salaries reported by both the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS; Washington, DC) and the US National Science Foundation (NSF; Washington, DC). In an AAAS report released last winter, the organization found that its academic life science members earned on average $80,000, whereas their commercial colleagues took home a mean of $96,000 in 2001. However, of the 19,000 respondents, two thirds were between 40 and 59 years old.
The NSF Science and Engineering Indicators released earlier this year also reported higher salaries for scientists, with recipients of bachelor's degrees making $59,000 in 1999 while PhDs averaged $68,000. But comparisons between the NSF and Nature Biotechnology data might be difficult because the NSF report included all disciplines, and engineers and computer scientists typically earn more than life scientists. It also didn't provide age breakdowns.
Why else was the $50,000 figure surprising? Perhaps because of preconceived notions. The snap assumption is that Nature Biotechnology readers are mostly in industry and that people in industry earn more than academics. However, only 20% of respondents said they worked in biotechnology companies. Again, this may be due to the online nature of the report; an earlier survey of print Nature Biotechnology subscribers indicated 61% worked in industry.
Beyond salary Salaries, however, may not be as interesting as the different ways people earn them. The survey showed diversity in terms of areas of expertise, as well as technology used to explore those areas. About 28% of respondents said they worked in genomics/proteomics, whereas 27% said they conducted drug discovery and development. And substantive numbers described using some of the most hyped technologies: 36% reported using bioinformatics, 36% using imaging microscopy, and 25% using microarrays.
Fifty-six percent of the respondents listed various types of research as their primary job activity, and 10% of the respondents reported working in commercial and industrial leadership positions (see Fig. 4). That's not surprising, as companies have more researchers than management. Also, anecdotal evidence suggests that biotechnology companies have a much easier time attracting scientists than experienced managers. Management positions cited in the survey included chief scientific officer or head of research, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, and chief financial officer.
Also, some scientists appeared to live in two worlds—especially more senior ones. Of readers who indicated they work at a university/college, biotechnology company, or hospital/medical school, 198 have a position at a for-profit company—135 as scientific advisor, 60 as founder, and 42 as board member. That provides some empirical evidence to another anecdotal trend in biotechnology—the academic scientist who is comfortable living in both industrial and academic settings, or is adroit at moving between the two.
It may not be too much of a stretch to hypothesize that Nature Biotechnology's young online readers are aspiring to positions held by the journal's older, more established, and better paid print subscribers. Learning how to move between university and company, master emerging technologies, and manage teams of scientists may help them do just that—and boost their salaries in return.
