Life Sciences Salary Report 2007

Straight out of a postdoc at the University of Southern California in 1970 and looking for his first faculty position, Alvin Crumbliss wanted a place that would buffer him through the first challenging years of becoming an independent scientist. Of the four positions he was considering, all offered a competitive salary, which at the time was less than $20,000 - about what a graduate student today would be paid for an assistantship.

The base salary that Duke University offered was lower than that of other schools, but Crumbliss says he felt that Duke offered him the best laboratory startup package. He was also able to negotiate a lighter initial teaching load so he could focus on those first crucial experiments that would win him outside sources of funding.

His priorities were the right ones for him. He gained tenure in 1977, and his work has been cited more than 2,700 times, according to ISI Web of Science. This past August, Crumbliss was appointed as dean of the natural sciences at Duke, after 37 years in the chemistry department.

"I think there's a huge void in the American marketplace for people who can not only work and speak in an engineering environment, but who can also work through problems creatively and communicate well." --Edmund Orr

Crumbliss wouldn't reveal his present salary at Duke, but he more than likely received a bit of a salary boost when he moved into an administrative position. In academia, administrative appointments can give you an extra bump in your salary, says Nancy Hopkins, a cancer researcher at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has been active on issues of salary inequity. Part of that decreases when the administrative appointment ends, "but part of the bump is forever," says Hopkins.

Recruiters, who negotiate top salaries for executives and lower-level scientists alike, say it's important to know your priorities and to argue for the factors that will move your career forward quickly, as Crumbliss did in 1970. An important place to start any negotiation is to know the salaries of positions in your field, your sector, and your geographic area. The Scientist's 2007 Life Sciences Salary Report, with data from the Economic Research Institute (ERI), can help provide that information.

Boston is one of the areas "where demand is outstripping supply."--Rich Pennock

Certain fields today command much higher salaries, according to the most recent data from the ERI (see the salary tables). Biochemists are earning median salaries of $74,000 (with the highest 90th percentile earning more than $90,000). "It's just a question of demand," says Rich Pennock, business unit leader of Kelly Scientific, a scientific staffing firm. "Typically we see higher demand for chemistry-related skills," says Pennock. In contrast, biologists earn a median of about $53,600. (When he worked as an organic chemist, Pennock recalls that biologists often filled chemical technician positions. "The supply of biologists is bigger than chemists.")

Biomedical engineers are also commanding high salaries these days, with a median pay of $69,500. Edmund Orr, managing partner of the Caden Murray Group, a life science search firm that specializes in companies that deal with medical devices, says that virtually any specialty that ends with "engineer" will do well in today's market. "I think there's a huge void in the American marketplace for people who can not only work and speak in an engineering environment, but who can also work through problems creatively and communicate well," says Orr.

The salaries of biochemists and biomedical engineers are not only high today, but both are also projected to grow at a rate of 4.9% in the next year, says Linda Lampkin, research director at ERI. By contrast, at $45,500, zoologists' salaries are the lowest and are projected to grow only 4.1% next year, says Lampkin.

When he decided on Duke, Crumbliss realized he'd need to change the lifestyle to which he'd grown accustomed. He and his wife had spent their lives in big cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, and 37 years ago, Durham held no resemblance to those metropoles. "My wife and I would go out to Washington, DC, sometimes just to hear the traffic and see the big lights of the city," says Crumbliss. "We did miss it a little." On the upside as an academic scientist, Crumbliss could take sabbatical leaves to Paris. "We live both good lives."

A scientist working today in Los Angeles would need to be paid an additional $40,000 on top of the $70,000 median to have the same standard of living as the average American renter.

The difference in rent between Los Angeles and Durham wasn't very big in 1970. Crumbliss and his wife paid $150 in Los Angeles, and $180 in Durham for a comparable apartment. Today, they'd pay much more in both places, and Los Angeles has become more expensive than Durham. (See the renter's cost of living table for more comparisons.)

So while salaries for the typical scientific researcher are higher in New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, so is the cost of living. A scientist working today in Los Angeles would need to be paid more than 50% more in salary - an additional $40,000 on top of the $70,000 median - to have the same standard of living as the average American renter. A Durham renter would need to be paid only $4,000 more.

Still, some of the more expensive locations boast the most opportunities. For example, Boston remains a hot spot for scientists in the biotech and pharmaceutical sectors because several companies, including Novartis, are building facilities there. It's one of the areas "where demand is outstripping supply," says Pennock. Moreover, salaries in that area are increasing across the technical skills, says Pennock.

Other areas, such as San Francisco, San Diego, and cities along the East Coast are continuing their strong growth in the life sciences, though not all hot-spot areas are immediately obvious. Orr says the little city of Warsaw, Indiana, is on his top-five list for areas with jobs specializing in medical devices.

Every pursuit should have a purpose. Whether it's for money, fame, recognition, etc, the only thing that matters in this life is your time.

I never got into research. In fact, I always hated "pure science" because my logic is, "what's the point?" The way I look at it is that Science/Engineering are tools. Now is it of more value to you to marvel at the beauty of these tools or to get down to brass tacks and build a house? I think human evolution can answer that question.

It's fine to dance for spare change on a sidewalk as long as you feel it is worth your time.

Nitin Gandhi is seriously misguided in his thinking for science and passion. Unless he's independently wealthy I don't know what planet he lives on.

We live in a world where 25 year old hedge fund analysts are paid six/seven figure sums for stuff they say is not "rocket science". At 25 I was working 14 hr days in a lab making $17,000 to get my PhD. Talented scientists and people like Nitin Gandhi have let themselves be exploited by the system, working for next-to-nothing for the greater "noble cause". Let me tell you, nobody cares about the Post-doc that worked on the Science or Nature paper.

I went to a top business school and am now working as a Biotechnology analyst at an investment bank. I still love the science and will always be a scientist, but not at the expense of being exploited by the system.

I agree with the most above on both sides.
I did postdoc for several years and now teach in private university. I thought a postdoc was the worst (job if we call it). Now, I think assistant professor is the worst. But, still happy. Why?
Financially, I am not getting paid what I am worth. However, there are big rewards that students that I taught come back and say thank you years later. My wife working in the biotech industry is getting paid more than twice. I still cherish what I am doing.
In my conclusion, it is a personal choice and preference, driven by education. I never had chances to think about other choices during my education. I do confess that I sometimes long for other professions, but for different reason from finances. My wife, on the other hand, wants to trade all financial compensation for college job.
It's hard to understand both sides at the same time.

I worked in science and never recieved my Ph.D., I loved the interesting work and was sucked in managing a lab for 20K while those around me recieved their doctorates. I am now 40, working in industry and do make 6 figures. It's a good life and I contribute to science in MD devices. I have less value due to not getting my Ph.D., but it's possible to fix that in other ways or live with it. For those leaving the sweat shops, thanks for trying and welcome home.

I too faced the dilemma about salaries. What made my mind up was a presentation at the university that I was doing my post-doc by someone in NIH. At the time, the average PhD interested in a professorship had to endure at least 8 years of post-docs before entering the ranks of professors. At the time, the max salary for a post doc was about $22,000 per year. I could not in good conscience provide for my family on that salary level for 8 years. I "jumped ship" to work in industry and just in my first year made several multiples of the post-doc salary and received many more nice salary increases since then. Granted, I am not working on my passion, but we all make choices.

I remember when I had "the conversation" with my post-doc boss. He gave me a speech about being like Christopher Columbus, exploring new and exciting areas. I told him I agreed but that the bank would not appreciate me signing my checks Christopher Columbus.

I agree with Ruthmarie, abc and Kemprad. Being impoverished isn't noble, it's idiocy. I have debt, no assets and no savings, all for a handful of papers and the chance at an assistant professorship at a mid-level school somewhere. This from someone who excelled in school and could have become whatever I wanted but chose to follow an interest in science. I'm not asking for a 6-figure income, but something that I can live a middle class life, rather than eke out an existence living from hand to mouth. My only question is whether I move to industry or follow what some of my friends have done and go into business as an analyst.

In his opinion Nitin Gandhi is critical of scientists demanding higher salary because he feels science is a "noble" profession. I disagree with him 100%. I agree with every negative comment posted here on how bad post-doc salaries are and how post-docs are being exploited. CNN once ranked post-doc salary as one of the 5 worst salaries in the nation when you take education levels into account. Why is a junior executive with an MBA paid $200,000 while a top notch post-doc making critical discoveries paid only $30-60,000? Science is doing itself a disservice. If I bolt today to pvt. practice my salary will triple to top 4% of the population. In academia you have to deal with bureaucracies of universities, mentors, and NIH. Plus, I completely agree with the comment that mentors take you for a ride. Living in poverty is not worth a Nature paper.

I agree a hundred percent with Ruthmarie Hicks. The glut of postdocs, from this country and abroad has indeed created sweat shops in the name of science. Wherein the glory, funds and research data all belong to the professor. After working in this shop day and night for the duration of the project (typically 3-4 years) the posdoc is left with little passion for more such experiences. There is a wide gap in demand and supply, with the latter being far above the former. I request and warn all you guys out there, to stop working your fingers and brains off in these sweat shops, making someone else's (the professor's) career. You would do much much better in any other discipline with less than half the effort and time. Leave the 'love and passion for science' rhetoric to the professors whose careers you are building. They clearly have a vested interest in this sort of mind-numbing rhetoric and philosophy. Believe me I am now pursuing a business career and am much happier and wealthier.

I think we need to move past the silly notion that ?passion? should drive the scientist forward. Passion doesn?t pay the bills. This is particularly true when you live in an ?ownership society? such as ours. Letting ?passion? lead every decision that you make could well lead the scientist to the wrong side of the poverty line. These are EXCUSES offered by principle investigators and the higher-ups at the NIH that contributed to the glut of post-docs. They have benefited handsomely from the logjam of post-docs that has resulted by creating high-tech sweat shops. This situation has ruined many a promising career ? when financial reality bumped up against ?passion.? It?s past time to start talking about parity ? if we don?t start we will find that our brain trust has done what I was forced to do ? abandon science for business and a decent income.

There is a need for parity between science and other profession, say, arts or sports. Creativity is not dampened by money in all cases. I believe, the professions such as art, IT, medicine,law etc. are protecting their practitioners well with handsome pay and concomitant lifestyles. Only teachers and scientists are left high and dry due to this philosophical debate. It is high time, our academies shed this high moral ground and talk parity in work environment. We need to showcase such success stories from our labs and classrooms.

Science like arts is the creative field, and also scientists like the artists should be driven with passion. The ones who feel that the money (Salary) in science is less may not be truly driven by passion, and they should leave the noble profession of science.

Quesion is not the less or more salary -i feel that the important factor should be sufficient money to maintain the life and family and a permanent job, to keep pursueing the novel ideas without the fear of getting fired or do the "routine" research "just" to maintain the money flow and maintain the job.
When we talk of relative salary it can also be compared with an artist who paints on the roadside and begs for the living.. are scientist paid so badly?

It is high time to uplift the passion for science among the scientist - the rest will be taken care of!
Nitin Gandhi