화학자들

G (매우 가능성이 높음)이 말합니다.

It involves very precise instructions and repeated tasks. It also involves having a wide range of knowledge

Michael (매우 가능성이 높음)이 말합니다.

Lab automation systems do already have a high impact on the number of jobs in the sector, especially in the Pharma industry. Analytical chemistry is a little harder to automate than the synthesis branch and might even grow in the future, but the days for synthetical organic chemistry are counted. GMOs do increase the pressure further, since its becoming much cheaper and faster to genetically modify bacteria and fungi into producing your product, than to develop complicated synthesis routes over several steps. Anorganic chemistry and material sciences might become more important, but will not be able to make up for the losses in the organic branch

Will N (매우 가능성이 높음)이 말합니다.

Chemistry, like law, is 80% lookup, 10% calculation and 10% inspiration

Sobes (낮은)이 말합니다.

A QC Chemistry Lab is usually run my corporations who would gladly shed as much human capital costs as possible.

There are autotitrators and autosamplers for many different equipment (Dissolution systems, HPLC, GC, UPLC, Mass spec and so on). These technologies have been around for decades yet analysts are still required to prepare samples, analyze them and then interpret and report data .

The two tenants which make a job susceptible to replacent by automation are Predictability and complexity. Some chemical analysis (more specifically wet chemistry, non-instrumental techniques) is more complex than what current automation systems can handle (i.e. chemical digestion of a sample, followed by extraction with a solvent, evaporation of the solvent) also sample quality is unpredictable (hence why QC labs exist, if every manufacturing method was flawless there would be no need for QC/QA).

MLearry이 말합니다.

The profession of Material Scientists has a 22% representation. A Chemist must take Physical Chemistry, Physics, and an elective related to Physical Chemistry.

Aspects of Inorganic Chemistry, Physical Organic Chemistry, and Polymers (as a part of Organic Chemistry) are very relevant to developing new materials with desirable properties. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in the U.S.A. categorizes Chemists and Material Scientists as one and the same profile.

Job opportunities for Material Scientists do allow Chemists to be considered as Material Scientists when the Chemist has experience and multiple credits in Physical Chemistry, Polymers, and/or Inorganic Chemistry. Many Chemists follow this professional direction. In fact, some departments are even named 'Materials Chemistry'.

This fact indicates that one of these professions has an incorrect percentage representation on this website. Either Materials Science should have 51% (or a percentage much closer to Chemistry) on this website, or Chemistry should have 22% (similar to Materials Science). The large discrepancy simply reflects a mistaken view on the nature of their work.

Chemistry, by default, incorporates aspects of Physical Chemistry applicable to materials. It is suggested to reassess the activities of chemists to correct the percentage that has been flawed in a previous assessment.

Kyle (낮은)이 말합니다.

Aspects definitely will be. I trimmed my own work by 80%. But the core field will be maintained, as I just got to do newer cool stuff instead of banal work

Anthony이 말합니다.

Seems to be one of the few good things about the chemistry job market. So glad I chose to study something different.

KPS이 말합니다.

Safer side..... That's good

Jay (기회 없음)이 말합니다.

The work of chemists is too technical for AI.

Álvaro (기회 없음)이 말합니다.

Scientists will never be replaced by robots

Ires (기회 없음)이 말합니다.

Automation will never overtake the job of a scientist