Twelfth Triennial Toxicology Salary Survey

Abstract

This is the 12th in a series of salary surveys conducted at approximately 3-year intervals for toxicologists that began in 1988. Previous salary surveys were conducted in 1988,¹ 1991,² 1995,³ 1998,⁴ 2001,⁵ 2004,⁶ 2007 (which was posted electronically, but not published), 2012,⁷ 2016,⁸ 2020,⁹ and 2022.¹⁰ In addition to presenting the 2024 results, herein we are providing additional data and an analysis of the trends for employment and pay in toxicology over the last 37 years.

The 12th Triennial Toxicology Salary Survey was conducted as a joint project by the American College of Toxicology (ACT) and the Society of Toxicology (SOT).^1–10 In addition to the two parent organizations, eight others (the Society for Birth Defects Research, the Society of Toxicologic Pathology, the Safety Pharmacology Society, the American Board of Toxicology (ABT), the Academy of Toxicological Sciences, the Roundtable of Toxicology Consultants, the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), and the Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomics Society) supported the effort by distributing the Survey Monkey-based instrument to their memberships.

Survey instruments were distributed electronically, in January 2024, with responses going to Survey Monkey, which eliminated duplicate responses. The survey instrument was similar to the form of the 2022 survey, developed in conjunction with the SOT Education and Career Development Committee (ECDC), which included questions evaluating periods of unemployment as well as employer-provided benefits. The survey methodology employed conformed to standard procedures. ¹¹ Though the response rate for this survey remains high for such endeavors, it is lower than almost all preceding years. The exception is that there was a modest increase over the immediately preceding (2022) survey. A total of 1313 responses were received, up from the 1087 responses received for the previous survey. ¹⁰ Figure 1 graphically presents the number of doctoral level respondents over the last 24 years (this year, 1106).

Figure 1.

Number of doctoral-level respondents across surveys.

The demographics of responses are summarized in Tables 1 through 7 and include respondents’ gender, age, degree, years of experience, certifications held, and areas of specialization. It should be noted that there continues to be a significant increase in the number of individuals reporting six-figure incomes and in those receiving significant sums as bonuses, as is reflected particularly in Tables 8 and 9. In addition, about 19% of respondents received additional professional income outside their primary employer, as shown in Table 10.

Table 1.

Distribution of Respondents by Gender.

Gender	Frequency	Percent
Male	614	46.7
Female	666	50.7
Non-binary	1	0.0007
Transmasculine	1	0.0007
Genderqueer	1	0.0007
N/A	30	0.02

Table 2.

Distribution of Respondents by Age.

Age	Frequency	Percent
<30	31	2.36
30–39	278	21.17
40–49	388	29.55
50–59	319	24.30
60–69	225	17.14
>70	72	5.48

Table 3.

Highest Degree Obtained.

Degree	Frequency	Percent
DSc	11	0.84
PhD	997	75.93
MD/DO/equivalent	13	0.99
DVM/VMD/equivalent	85	6.47
PharmD	3	0.23
JD	0	0.00
Master’s degree/equivalent	164	12.49
Bachelor/undergraduate	39	2.97
Associate	0	0.00
No degree	1	0.08

Table 4.

Years Since Completion of Highest Degree.

Years	Frequency	Percent
No response	2	0.15
0–1	14	1.07
1–3	43	3.27
3–5	69	5.26
5–9	165	12.57
9–19	401	30.54
19–29	355	27.04
29–39	177	13.48
>39	87	6.63

Table 5.

Field of Highest Degree.

Field	Frequency	Percent
No response	3	0.23
Biochemistry	68	5.18
Biomedical Systems	18	1.37
Biology/Physiology/Zoology	120	9.14
Chemistry	33	2.51
Genetics	17	1.29
Human Health Medical	17	1.29
Molecular Engineering	12	0.91
Pathology	116	8.83
Pharmacology	79	6.02
Public Health	43	3.27
Toxicology	600	45.70
Other	187	14.24

Table 6.

Years of Direct Experience in Toxicology.

Years	Frequency	Percent
No response	56	4.27
0–1	25	1.90
1–3	72	5.48
3–5	93	7.08
5–9	181	13.79
9–19	368	28.03
19–29	307	23.38
29–39	151	11.50
>39	60	4.57

Direct experience includes research, writing, consulting, and teaching—that is not manufacturing of equipment, sales, or regulatory activities.

Table 7.

Current Certifications Held by Respondents.

Certifications	Frequency
None	524
ABAT	3
ABVT	3
ACLAM	4
ASCP	3
ATS	62
CBIOL	5
CHMM	2
CIH	12
DABT	571
DABVT	6
DACVP	122
DECVP	5
DJCVP	1
DJST	3
DKBT	2
DRC Path	2
DSP	4
ECVP	1
ERT	95
FAACT	1
FACFEI	1
FACMT	1
FIATP	19
FIBiol	1
FRC Path	3
JSTP	2
IATP	6
LAT	11
LATG	13
MIBiol	3
MRC Path	1
MRCVS	7
MT (ASCP)	8
PMP	6
RAC	9
RPh	6
Other	74
No response	6

Table 8.

Primary Job Base Salary ^a .

Salary in USD ($)	Frequency	Percent
No response	65	4.95
Under 30,000	21	1.60
30,000–$39,999	5	0.38
40,000–49,999	5	0.38
50,000–59,999	14	1.07
60,000–69,999	18	1.37
70,000–79,999	27	2.06
80,000–89,999	39	2.97
90,000–99,999	55	4.19
100,000–109,999	66	5.03
110,000–119,999	59	4.49
120,000–149,999	198	15.08
150,000–199,999	307	23.38
200,000–249,999	188	14.32
250,000–299,999	126	9.60
300,000–349,999	70	5.33
350,000 or greater	50	3.81

^aExcludes fees, overtime, bonuses, commission, and secondary employment.

Table 9.

Received Bonus, Commission, Stock Gift, or Profit Sharing.

Received	Frequency	Percent
No response	125	9.52
Yes	756	57.58
No	432	32.90

Table 10.

Additional Professional Income Outside Primary Employer.

Salary in USD ($)	Frequency	Percent
No response	120	9.14
None	947	72.12
<499	51	3.88
500–4,999	86	6.55
5,000–9,999	35	2.67
10,000–14,999	16	1.22
15,000–19,999	16	1.22
>20,000	42	3.20

Information not presented in the tables are that over half (51.46%) of doctoral respondents have held a formal mentored post-doctoral research position, with most respondents having served 2–3 years as a post-doctoral scholar. Furthermore, the vast majority (96.75%) of respondents held 1–2 post-doctoral fellowships. Worth noting is that the majority of respondents (75.51%) did not participate in a toxicology-related internship. Most respondents who did held a toxicology-related internship during graduate training (14.49%).

Salary estimates for purposes of calculation were taken to be the midpoint of the range by each cohort, for example, for the salary range of $90,000–$99,999, a mean value of $95,000 was used in all calculations. In addition, there were a significant number of incomplete responses that required further estimation by statistical methods. The incomplete responses and the methods used to handle them were

• Fourteen (14) respondents did not indicate a gender. These results were not included in the gender-based breakdowns.

• Twelve (12) respondents indicated a salary >$350,000 without including the actual amount in the area provided. The salary used for calculation using these was $350,000. This probably led to a bias toward lower average values.

• One hundred eighty-six (186) respondents indicated they received bonuses, commission, stock options, or profit sharing without indicating the amount. These were excluded from consideration for this endpoint.

A total of 1066 of the respondents (471 men, 569 women, and 26 non-designated gender) were full-time employed holders of doctoral degrees in the United States. Table 11 presents the mean salaries (± one standard deviation) for these individuals, sorted by years of experience after receipt of their degrees, gender, and field of employment. Salaries are in thousands of U.S. dollars per year, with necessary conversions having been made for other currencies.

Table 11.

US Doctoral Annual Salaries.

Employer	Sex	Years Experience Post-Terminal Degree
		0–1	1–3	3–5	5–9	9–19	19–29	29–39	>39
Academic	F	—	175 ± NC (1)	53 ± 32 (2)	90 ± 40 (7)	117 ± 55 (32)	171 ± 76 (16)	168 ± 56 (11)	178 ± 81 (6)
	M	—	—	95 ± 82 (2)	105 ± 36 (9)	135 ± 72 (16)	192 ± 58 (28)	182 ± 82 (17)	218 ± 45 (7)
	Other a	—	—	—	—	205 ± 99 (2)	225 ± NC (1)	—	—
Business development/sales	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	325 ± NC (1)	—	—	105 ± NC (1)
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Consulting (with a firm)	F	—	108 ± 55 (4)	128 ± 46 (4)	127 ± 29 (5)	129 ± 44 (17)	180 ± 50 (10)	240 ± 74 (5)	190 ± 60 (4)
	M	—	95 ± 28 (2)	125 ± 17 (3)	129 ± 13 (5)	144 ± 67 (9)	221±56 (9)	269 ± 83 (4)	179 ± 143 (4)
	Other a	—	95 ± NC (1)	—	—	135 ± NC (1)	—	—	135 ± NC (1)
Consulting (independent)	F	—	—	—	—	137 ± 126 (3)	414 ± 126 (6)	267 ± 88 (3)	249 ± 147 (5)
	M	—	—	—	—	135 ± NC (1)	427 ± 155 (7)	313 ± 225 (20)	241±175 (24)
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	175 ± NC (1)
Contract laboratory	F	100 ± 7 (2)	100 ± 7 (2)	95 ± 14 (2)	174 ± 45 (9)	206 ± 62 (15)	140 ± 87 (12)	238 ± 48 (4)	175 ± NC (1)
	M	—	—	155 ± 28 (2)	125 ± 32 (5)	85 ± 16 (4)	187 ± 81 (8)	247 ± 72 (5)	317 ± 38 (3)
	Other a	—	—	—	225 ± NC (1)	135 ± NC (1)	504 ± NC (1)	—	—
Federal government (including military)	F	—	108 ± 23 (3)	105 ± 30 (3)	117 ± 18 (6)	147 ± 39 (24)	166 ± 40 (20)	200 ± 38 (8)	135 ± 0 (2)
	M	—	—	—	111 ± 52 (5)	146 ± 31 (20)	162 ± 45 (19)	171 ± 41 (16)	200 ± 50 (4)
	Other a	—	—	—	105 ± NC (1)	175 ± NC (1)	175 ± NC (1)	—	—
State or local government	F	95 ± NC (1)	75 ± NC (1)	95 ± NC (1)	135 ± NC (1)	119 ± 30 (8)	145 ± 52 (3)	115 ± 0 (2)	—
	M	—	—	85 ± 0 (2)	105 ± 14 (2)	175 ± NC (1)	115 ± NC (1)	135 ± NC (1)	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Industry	F	175 ± NC (1)	124 ± 37 (9)	154 ± 68 (17)	134 ± 20 (35)	208±56 (96)	246 ± 84 (51)	246 ± 50 (17)	275 ± 0 (2)
	M	95 ± NC (1)	113 ± 31 (6)	204 ± 115 (10)	155 ± 51 (30)	215 ± 68 (71)	240 ± 70 (86)	270 ± 88 (30)	346 ± 83 (3)
	Other a	—	—	—	175 ± NC (1)	258 ± 76 (3)	245 ± 45 (5)	425 ± 106 (2)	—
Nonprofit research institution	F	—	—	115 ± NC (1)	101 ± 22 (5)	110 ± 35 (2)	125 ± NC (1)	225 ± NC (1)	—
	M	—	—	105 ± NC (1)	65 ± NC (1)	178 ± 66 (5)	325 ± NC (1)	—	363 ± NC (1)
	Other a	—	—	135 ± NC (1)	—	—	—	325 ± NC (1)	—
Other	F	—	—	80 ± 35 (2)	—	149 ± 73 (7)	275 ± NC (1)	75 ± NC (1)	—
	M	—	—	—	105 ± NC (1)	––	225 ± NC (1)	225 ± NC (1)	642 ± 99 (4)
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

NC, not calculable.

All numbers are mean ± standard deviation (no. of respondents); values in 1000’s of US dollars.

Highest mean salaries by years of experience are bolded.

^aOther include prefer not to answer, non-binary, cis-gender, genderqueer and transmasculine.

The mean salaries (±1 SD) for the 136 master’s level respondents from the U.S. are presented in Table 12. Likewise, the results from the 60 bachelor’s level respondents are presented in Table 13. The remaining respondents were not employed full-time during the reporting period (see Table 37 for detail) and are characterized as follows: graduate and postdoctoral students (4); working part-time (25); not specified (36); other (5).

Table 12.

US Masters Annual Salaries.

Employer	Sex	Years Experience Post-Terminal Degree
		0–1	1–3	3–5	5–9	9–19	19–29	29–39	>39
Academic	F	—	—	45 ± NC (1)	175 ± NC (1)	115 ± 28 (2)	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Business development or sales	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Consulting (with a firm)	F	95 ± 28 (2)	75 ± 14 (2)	100 ± 21 (2)	103 ± 30 (5)	83 ± 41 (4)	132 ± 38 (3)	—	—
	M	65 ± NC (1)	60 ± 7 (2)	—	—	178 ± 45 (3)	135 ± 0 (3)	325 ± NC (1)	574 ± NC (1)
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Consulting (independent)	F	—	—	—	—	—	85 ± NC (1)	135 ± NC (1)	225 ± NC (1)
	M	—	—	—	—	—	75 ± NC (1)	85 ± NC (1)	125 ± 14 (2)
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Contract laboratory	F	55 ± NC (1)	75 ± NC (1)	95 ± 14 (2)	155 ± 28 (2)	145 ± 42 (2)	135 ± NC (1)	180 ± 64 (2)	—
	M	—	155 ± 99 (2)	—	—	118 ± 95 (3)	90 ± 7 (2)	—	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	135 ± NC (1)	—	—
Federal government (including military)	F	—	—	—	75 ± NC (1)	180 ± 64 (2)	90 ± 21 (2)	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	135 ± 0 (2)	135 ± NC (1)	—
	Other a	—	—	—	30 ± NC (1)	—	—	—	—
State or local government	F	—	—	105 ± NC (1)	—	—	85 ± 26 (3)	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	105 ± NC (1)	—	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Industry	F	—	175 ± 0 (2)	100 ± 25 (4)	145 ± 50 (9)	149 ± 51 (16)	149 ± 50 (8)	175 ± NC (1)	––
	M	135 ± 0 (2)	110 ± 35 (2)	135 ± NC (1)	163 ± 49 (4)	101 ± 60 (11)	178 ± 40 (6)	250 ± 35 (2)	—
	Other a	—	—	75 ± NC (1)	—	135 ± NC (1)	—	—	—
Nonprofit research institution	F	—	—	—	138 ± 35 (3)	—	95 ± 57 (2)	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	135 ± 0 (2)	175 ± NC (1)	—	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	135 ± NC (1)	—
Other	F	—	—	—	110 ± 7 (2)	275 ± NC (1)	—	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

NC, not calculable.

All numbers are mean ± standard deviation (no. of respondents); values in 1000’s of US dollars.

^aOther include prefer not to answer, non-binary, cis-gender, genderqueer and transmasculine.

Table 13.

US Bachelors Annual Salaries.

Employer	Sex	Years Experience Post-Terminal Degree
		0–1	1–3	3–5	5–9	9–19	19–29	29–39	>39
Academic	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Business development or sales	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Clinical practice	F	—	45 ± NC (1)	—	—	—	—	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Consulting (with a firm)	F	—	—	—	—	85 ± NC (1)	138 ± 35 (3)	135 ± 57 (2)	—
	M	—	—	—	—	135 ± NC (1)	55 ± NC (1)	175 ± NC (1)	—
Consulting (independent)	F	—	—	—	—	—	175 ± NC (1)	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Contract laboratory	F	—	—	—	—	105 ± NC (1)	115 ± NC (1)	175 ± NC (1)	105 ± NC (1)
	M	—	—	—	—	—	200 ± 35 (2)	105 ± NC (1)	—
Federal government (including military)	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	M	—	—	325 ± NC (1)	—	—	—	—	—
State or local government	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Industry	F	—	—	—	—	155 ± 28 (2)	165 ± 55 (5)	135 ± NC (1)	—
	M	—	—	—	—	145 ± 87 (4)	85 ± 42 (2)	—	—
Nonprofit research institution	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Other	F	—	—	—	75 ± NC (1)	—	—	115 ± NC (1)	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

NC, not calculable.

All numbers are mean ± standard deviation (no. of respondents); values in 1000’s of US dollars.

There were no associates degree respondents. This is worrisome but is potentially a reflection of those most likely to receive and participate in this survey, rather than an accurate representation of employment in this industry as a whole.

Table 14 presents a summary of data on those 542 (50.8% of all employed) doctoral recipients who received bonuses in addition to salary. Table 15 presents summaries of the geographic distributions of the survey respondents by country. Table 16 presents a summary by ethnicity and is graphically displayed in Figure 2. Table 17 of these reporting Hispanic or Latinx origin. Table 18 summarizes by province for Canadian responders. Table 19 presents a summary of distribution by state of employed U.S. responders. Table 20 summarizes the major professional society memberships of the respondents. Many respondents belong to more than one society. Table 21 provides a summary of the influence of certification on doctoral level salaries.

Table 14.

US Doctoral Bonus Amounts.

Employment Category	Sex	Years Experience Post-Terminal Degree
		0–1	1–3	3–5	5–9	9–19	19–29	29–39	>39
Academic	F	—	—	—	8 ± 0 (2)	14 ± 10 (8)	15 ± NC (1)	—	—
	M	—	—	—	10 ± NC (1)	—	21 ± 18 (5)	17 ± 2 (2)	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	35 ± NC (1)	—	—	—
Development or sales	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	15 ± NC (1)
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Consulting (with a firm)	F	—	22 ± 24 (3)	7 ± 5 (3)	20 ± 21 (2)	9 ± 9 (10)	23 ± 32 (8)	22 ± 20 (3)	57 ± 40 (3)
	M	—	4 ± 4 (4)	30 ± 24 (3)	—	25 ± 18 (9)	50 ± 75 (10)	107 ± 60 (5)	49 ± 79 (3)
	Other a	—	—	—	16 ± 21 (3)	1 ± NC (1)	—	30 ± NC (1)	—
Consulting (independent)	F	—	—	—	—	20 ± NC (1)	—		—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	20 ± NC (1)	85 ± 50 (2)
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Contract laboratory	F	—	—	—	14 ± 8 (5)	30 ± 27 (7)	24 ± 24 (6)		—
	M	—	125 ± NC (1)	15 ± 0 (2)	11 ± 7 (2)	—	16 ± 16 (7)	58 ± 53 (5)	41 ± 36 (2)
	Other a	—	—	—	50 ± NC (1)	19 ± 24 (5)	9 ± NC (1)	—	—
Federal government (including military)	F	—	1 ± NC (1)	10 ± 0 (2)	4 ± 4 (3)	7 ± 9 (6)	5 ± 3 (7)	4 ± 4 (5)	—
	M	—	—	—	8 ± 10 (2)	7 ± 4 (5)	4 ± 1 (3)	9 ± 10 (9)	3 ± NC (1)
	Other a	—	—	—	10 ± NC (1)	35 ± NC (1)	—	—	—
State or local government	F	—	—	—	—	7.5 ± NC (1)	—	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Industry	F	—	23 ± 26 (8)	27 ± 31 (7)	31 ± 33 (31)	51 ± 57 (76)	83 ± 85 (39)	75 ± 69 (14)	50 ± NC (1)
	M	13 ± 10 (2)	21 ± 20 (7)	68 ± 63 (7)	33 ± 35 (27)	53 ± 51 (68)	86 ± 108 (79)	118 ± 135 (31)	216 ± 227 (3)
	Other a	—	—	—	—	36 ± 56 (3)	79 ± 41 (2)	177 ± 104 (2)	—
Nonprofit research institution	F	—	—	—	3 ± NC (1)	5 ± NC (1)	5 ± NC (1)	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	56 ± 59 (4)	8 ± 9 (2)	—	64 ± NC (1)
	Other a	—	—	150 ± NC (1)	—	—	—	—	—
Other	F	—	—	—	—	17 ± 19 (2)	42 ± NC (1)	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	25 ± NC (1)	40 ± NC (1)	70 ± 28 (2)
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

NC, not calculable.

All numbers are mean ± standard deviation (no. of respondents); values in 1000’s of US dollars.

^aOther include prefer not to answer, non-binary, cis-gender, genderqueer and transmasculine.

Table 15.

Distribution of Respondents by Country.

Country	Frequency	Percent
Australia	5	0.38
Argentina	1	0.08
Belgium	3	0.23
Bosnia Herzegovina	1	0.08
Canada	34	2.59
China	3	0.23
Colombia	1	0.08
Cyrus	1	0.08
Czech Republic	1	0.08
Denmark	4	0.30
Egypt	1	0.08
Ethiopia	1	0.08
Finland	1	0.08
France	8	0.61
Germany	14	1.07
Ghana	1	0.08
India	8	0.61
Ireland	1	0.08
Italy	2	0.15
Japan	3	0.23
S. Korea	1	0.08
Luxembourg	3	0.23
Mexico	1	0.08
Netherlands	7	0.53
New Zealand	1	0.08
Nigeria	2	0.15
Panama	1	0.08
Portugal	1	0.08
Qatar	1	0.08
Switzerland	14	1.07
Taiwan	5	0.38
Turkey	1	0.08
United Kingdom	18	1.37
United States of America	1109	84.46
No response	54	4.11

Table 16.

Distribution of Respondents by Ethnicity.

Ethnicity	Frequency	Percent
American Indian or Alaskan Native	10	0.76
Asian	216	16.45
Black or African American	61	4.65
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	2	0.15
White	964	73.42
A race not listed	24	1.83
Prefer not to answer	65	4.95

Figure 2.

Distribution of respondents by ethnicity.

Table 17.

Distribution of Respondents With Hispanic or Latinx Origin.

Received	Frequency	Percent
Hispanic or Latinx	58	4.42
Not Hispanic or Latinx	1,179	89.79
Prefer not to answer	57	4.34
Other	19	1.45
No response	0	0.00

Across all respondents, but practically limited to US and Canadian respondents.

Table 18.

Distribution of Employed Canadian Respondents by Province.

Province	Frequency	Percent
Alberta	1	0.08
British Columbia	2	0.15
Ontario	14	1.07
Quebec	11	0.84
Saskatchewan	1	0.08

Table 19.

Distribution of Employed USA Respondents by State.

State	Frequency	Percent	State	Frequency	Percent
Alabama	5	0.38	Nebraska	2	0.15
Arizona	7	0.53	Nevada	4	0.30
Arkansas	19	1.45	New Hampshire	3	0.23
California	136	10.36	New Jersey	86	6.55
Colorado	16	1.22	New Mexico	7	0.53
Connecticut	21	1.60	New York	32	2.44
Delaware	6	0.46	North Carolina	100	7.62
Florida	11	0.84	North Dakota	1	0.08
Georgia	14	1.07	Ohio	52	3.96
Hawaii	1	0.08	Oklahoma	1	0.08
Idaho	3	0.23	Oregon	8	0.61
Illinois	28	2.13	Pennsylvania	53	4.04
Indiana	26	1.98	Rhode Island	1	0.08
Iowa	5	0.38	South Carolina	4	0.30
Kansas	7	0.53	Tennessee	4	0.30
Kentucky	9	0.69	Texas	48	3.66
Louisiana	6	0.46	Utah	11	0.84
Maine	3	0.23	Virginia	21	1.60
Maryland	80	6.09	Washington	33	2.51
Massachusetts	76	5.79	Washington DC	12	0.91
Michigan	41	3.12	West Virginia	9	0.69
Minnesota	41	3.12	Wisconsin	23	1.75
Mississippi	3	0.23	Wyoming	1	0.08
Missouri	9	0.69	No response	25	1.90

Table 20.

2023 Society Membership of Respondents.

Society a	Doctoral	Masters	Bachelors
AACR	29	1	0
ACS	37	6	0
ACT	311	29	15
ASPE	25	0	0
BDRP	45	3	2
EMS	21	2	0
ISSX	9	0	0
RAPS	22	0	0
RTC	32	2	0
SPS	28	3	2
SRA	21	3	0
SOT (national)	934	44	0
SOT (Canada)	7	1	3
SOT (regional but not national)	17	0	1
SETAC	56	12	4
STP	145	5	0
Toxicology forum	30	1	0
Other	131	21	6

^aAbbreviations: AACR, American Association for Cancer Research; ACS, American Chemical Society; ACT, American College of Toxicology; ASPE, American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics; BDRP, Society for Birth Defects Research & Prevention; EMS, Environmental Mutagen Society; ISSX, International Society for Study of Xenobiotics; RTC, Roundtable of Toxicology Consultants; SPS, Safety Pharmacology Society; SRA, Society for Risk Analysis; SOT, Society of Toxicology; SETAC, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry; STP, Society of Toxicologic Pathologists.

Table 21.

Board Certification and Doctoral Salaries.

Certification Status	Sex	Years Experience Post-Terminal Degree
		0–1	1–3	3–5	5–9	9–19	19–29	29–39	>39
Certified	F	—	175 ± 0 (3)	174 ± 69 (12)	156 ± 47 (35)	192 ± 66 (127)	218 ± 892 (73)	224 ± 58 (37)	183 ± 79 (13)
	M	135 ± NC (1)	185 ± 127 (2)	161 ± 32 (8)	148±38 (35)	184 ± 75 (98)	251 ± 300 (122)	239 ± 98 (62)	244 ± 100 (39)
	Other a	—	—	—	200 ± 35 (2)	213 ± 88 (6)	271 ± 171 (8)	250 ± 115 (4)	135 ± NC (1)
Not certified	F	118 ± 39 (4)	106 ± 22 (17)	101 ± 36 (20)	128 ± 42 (33)	139 ± 54 (75)	186 ± 75 (47)	188 ± 78 (15)	228 ± 91 (7)
	M	98 ± 35 (3)	97 ± 34 (13)	148 ± 110 (13)	131 ± 47 (27)	153 ± 71 (51)	197 ± 66 (59)	175 ± 100 (41)	165 ± 95 (14)
	Other a	—	95 ± NC (1)	105 ± 42 (2)	68 ± 53 (2)	213 ± 88 (6)	162 ± 23 (3)	350 ± NC (1)	175 ± NC (1)

NC, not calculable.

All numbers are mean ± standard deviation (no. of respondents); values in 1000’s of US dollars.

^aOther include prefer not to answer, non-binary, cis-gender, genderqueer and transmasculine.

Table 22 presents a breakdown of respondents’ sector of employment. Table 23 presents responders self-reported job titles, Table 24 respondents’ numbers of direct reports. Table 25 breaks down employment by industry, while Table 26 by nature of academic institution for those working in academia. Each of these factors influences compensation levels, and the data were collected, but analysis of the influence of these factors is beyond the scope of this manuscript.

Table 22.

Description of Employment.

Employer	Frequency	Percent
Academic	165	12.57
Business development and/or sales of equipment or services	2	0.15
Clinical practice	2	0.15
Consulting—as an employee of a consulting firm	130	9.90
Consulting—independent	78	5.94
Contract laboratory	107	8.15
Government—federal (inc. military)	137	10.43
Government—state or local	30	2.28
Industry	568	43.26
Nonprofit research institution	32	2.44
Other	22	1.68

Table 23.

Job Title.

Title	Frequency	Percent
President, owner, or chief scientific officer	80	6.09
Vice president	63	4.80
Section head or function head	82	6.25
Department manager	23	1.75
Director	205	15.61
Manager	56	4.27
Research fellow	29	2.21
Principal scientist	172	13.10
Senior scientist	205	15.61
Scientist	124	9.44
Technician	2	0.15
Other	65	4.95
No response	207	15.77

Table 24.

Number of Direct and Indirect Reports.

Number	Frequency	Percent
None	599	45.62
1–6	377	28.71
7–15	149	11.35
16–30	69	5.26
31–50	23	1.75
51–100	18	1.37
More than 100	22	1.68
No response	56	4.27

Table 25.

Industry Employment Breakdown.

Employer	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent
	Male		Female		Other a /NA
Pharmaceutical	156	11.88	162	12.34	9	0.69
Chemical	33	2.51	27	2.06	2	0.15
Consumer product	28	2.13	32	2.44	0	0.00
Food/food ingredients	14	1.07	8	0.61	0	0.00
Petroleum	2	0.15	4	0.30	1	0.08
Medical devices	25	1.90	29	2.21	0	0.00
Other	11	0.84	14	1.07	1	0.08
No response	338	25.74	374	28.48	21	1.60

^aOther include prefer not to answer, non-binary, cis-gender, genderqueer, and transmasculine.

Table 26.

Academic Employment Breakdown.

Employer	Frequency	Percent
Private doctoral-granting institution/medical center	23	1.75
Private master’s granting university	2	0.15
Private primarily undergraduate institution	4	0.30
Public doctoral-granting institution/medical center	117	8.91
Public master’s granting university	8	0.61
Public primarily undergraduate institution	8	0.61
Other	2	0.15
No response	1149	87.51

Toxicologists have a range of specialized areas of expertise and Table 27 presents a breakdown of areas of specialization and the distribution of respondents in these areas. As can be seen, food and ingredient toxicology, general toxicology, regulatory toxicology, and risk assessment are the largest areas of employment by areas of expertise. Both industries and academic institutions show wide variations in compensation for toxicologists. Tables 28 and 29, for different industrial sectors and academic institutions, respectively, express these differences for doctoral level toxicologists. Note that the industrial sector summaries do not include consultants, who tend to be more senior in experience and to potentially have greater compensation.

Table 27.

Current Area of Specialization.

Area	Frequency	Percent
General toxicology	217	16.53
Aquatic toxicology	8	0.61
Biotechnology	16	1.22
Carcinogenesis	11	0.84
Cardiovascular toxicology	7	0.53
Chemistry	4	0.30
Clinical and translational toxicology	2	0.15
Computational toxicology	15	1.14
Dermal toxicology	8	0.61
Drug development	109	8.30
Environmental/ecological toxicology	26	1.98
Exposure science	3	0.23
Food and ingredient toxicology	266	20.26
Forensics	3	0.23
Genomics	7	0.53
Immunotoxicology	20	1.52
Inhalation	33	2.51
Mechanistic toxicology	42	3.20
Medical devices	67	5.10
Molecular toxicology	13	0.99
Mutagenesis	4	0.30
Nanotoxicology	3	0.23
Neurotoxicology	28	2.13
Occupational safety and health	19	1.45
Ocular toxicology	13	0.99
Pathology	100	7.62
Pharmacokinetics	9	0.69
Regulatory toxicology	196	14.93
Reproductive/developmental toxicology	49	3.73
Risk assessment	153	11.65
Safety pharmacology	6	0.46
Stem cells	2	0.15
Veterinary toxicology	7	0.53
Other	33	2.51
No response	54	4.11

Only one response was allowed. Those who have several specialties had to select a “best describes” answer.

Table 28.

Industry Salaries for Doctoral Respondents.

Employer	Sex	Years Experience Post-Terminal Degree
		0–1	1–3	3–5	5–9	9–19	19–29	29–39	>39
Pharmaceutical	F	175 ± NC (1)	137 ± 55 (5)	185 ± 89 (7)	183 ± 39 (16)	234 ± 43 (59)	268 ± 84 (28)	260 ± 53 (10)	275 ± NC (1)
	M	—	140 ± 49 (2)	224 ± 121 (8)	155 ± 58 (19)	264 ± 61 (22)	256 ± 71 (53)	287 ± 79 (22)	346 ± 120 (3)
	Other a	—	—	—	175 ± NC (1)	258 ± 76 (3)	263 ± 25 (4)	425 ± 106 (2)	—
Chemical	F	—	—	125 ± 14 (2)	125 ± 20 (4)	158 ± 42 (6)	179 ± 50 (8)	225 ± 0 (2)	275 ± NC (1)
	M	—	—	—	142 ± 31 (3)	165 ± 37 (17)	178 ± 37 (4)	245 ± 99 (6)	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Consumer product	F	—	115 ± 28 (2)	113 ± 21 (4)	132 ± 24 (7)	140 ± 30 (13)	175 ± NC (1)	250 ± 35 (2)	—
	M	95 ± NC (1)	95 ± NC (1)	—	150 ± 30 (4)	172 ± 33 (13)	219 ± 65 (7)	225 ± NC (1)	—
	Other a	—	—	—	––	––	––	—	—
Food/food ingredients	F	—	—	—	155 ± 28 (2)	168 ± 60 (3)	––	—	—
	M	—	115 ± NC (1)	—	—	191 ± 64 (8)	225 ± 61 (5)	—	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Petroleum	F	—	—	—	85 ± NC (1)	212 ± 100 (3)	—	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	225 ± 71 (2)	—	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	175 ± NC (1)	—	—
Medical devices	F	—	95 ± NC (1)	200 ± 35 (2)	178 ± 45 (3)	177 ± 29 (6)	188 ± 25 (4)	275 ± NC (1)	—
	M	—	95 ± 0 (2)	120 ± 21 (2)	165 ± 66 (3)	225 ± NC (1)	258 ± 58 (7)	—	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Other	F	—	105 ± NC (1)	115 ± 0 (2)	110 ± 7 (2)	215 ± 42 (5)	—	175 ± 0 (2)	—
	M	—	—	—	175 ± NC (1)	175 ± NC (1)	183 ± 61 (8)	95 ± NC (1)	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

NC, not calculable.

All numbers are mean ± standard deviation (no. of respondents); values in 1000’s of US dollars.

All salary figures were base pay only.

^aOther include prefer not to answer, non-binary, cis-gender, genderqueer and transmasculine.

Table 29.

Academic Salaries for Doctoral Respondents.

Employer	Sex	Years Experience Post-Terminal Degree
		0–1	1–3	3–5	5–9	9–19	19–29	29–39	>39
Public doctoral-granting institution/medical center	F	—	175 ± NC (1)	75 ± NC (1)	93 ± 44 (6)	126 ± 55 (22)	182 ± 80 (10)	174 ± 62 (8)	176 ± 98 (4)
	M	—	—	95 ± 14 (2)	114 ± 29 (7)	127 ± 53 (9)	201 ± 62 (21)	180 ± 73 (15)	225 ± 50 (5)
	Other a	––	––	––	––	205 ± 99 (2)	225 ± NC (1)	––	––
Public master’s granting university	F	—	—	—	—	73 ± 60 (2)	135 ± NC (1)	105 ± NC (1)	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Public primarily undergraduate institute	F	—	—	30 ± NC (1)	—	73 ± 43 (3)	—	—	135 ± NC (1)
	M	—	—	—	—	85 ± NC (1)	225 ± NC (1)	—	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Private doctoral-granting institution/medical center	F	—	—	—	—	148 ± 46 (3)	190 ± 44 (4)	175 ± 0 (2)	225 ± NC (1)
	M	—	—	—	115 ± NC (1)	168 ± 106 (5)	155 ± 28 (2)	325 ± NC (1)	200 ± 35 (2)
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Private master’s granting university	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	M	—	—	—	35 ± NC (1)	95 ± NC (1)	175 ± NC (1)	75 ± NC (1)	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Private primarily undergraduate institute	F	—	—	—	75 ± NC (1)	80 ± 21 (2)	—	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	135 ± NC (1)	—	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Other	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	M	—	—	—	—	—	135 ± NC (1)	—	—
	Other a	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

NC, not calculable.

All numbers are mean ± standard deviation (no. of respondents); values in 1000’s of US dollars.

All salary figures were base pay only.

^aOther include prefer not to answer, non-binary, cis-gender, genderqueer and transmasculine.

Tables 30–32 summarize responses from academic sector toxicologists as to academic rank (Table 30), title (Table 31), and whether the respondent holds tenure or not (Table 32). Responses summarized in Table 33 seek to understand what principal tasks for toxicologists were. Performing risk assessments, consulting/commercially with clients and key stakeholders, laboratory research, and regulatory compliance (including participation and review of submissions) represent the vast majority of responses.

Table 30.

Academic Status.

Status	Frequency	Percent
Full professor	79	6.02
Associate professor	43	3.27
Assistant professor	28	2.13
Instructor	2	0.15
Research scientist/associate	8	0.61
Other	4	0.30
No response/not applicable	1149	87.51

Table 31.

Academic Title.

Title	Frequency	Percent
Vice president	0	0.00
Dean	2	0.15
Department chair/head	22	1.68
Graduate program director	15	1.14
Other senior level title	33	2.51
No response/not applicable	1241	94.52

Table 32.

Tenure.

Title	Frequency	Percent
Yes	106	8.07
No	57	4.34
No response/not applicable	1150	87.59

Table 33.

Principal Tasks for Toxicologists.

Task	Average Percentage of Respondents	Responses
Administration	12	1,076
People management	12	969
Consulting, interactions with clients and communications with key stakeholders	22	998
Laboratory/research	23	854
Regulatory compliance, or preparation, or review of submission	23	930
Risk assessment	27	863
Sales/marketing	2	527
Teaching	9	690
Other	10	353

So, how much time is spent actually in the practice of toxicology? As summarized in Table 34, more than 68% of toxicologists spend the majority of their work time in the actual “practice” of our science. How long have respondents worked for their current employer? Table 35 addresses this question, with the most frequent answer being from 1–3 years. How many promotions with title change and increased compensation have respondents received during their careers? Approximately 78% of respondents (68% of the total) have received two or more over their career to date (Table 36).

Table 34.

% Time Spent Practicing Toxicology.

%	Frequency	Percent
0–10	71	5.41
11–25	100	7.62
26–50	186	14.17
51–75	289	22.01
76–100	611	46.53
No response	56	4.27

Table 35.

Years Worked for Current Employer.

Years	Frequency	Percent
0–1	130	9.90
1–3	272	20.72
3–5	169	12.87
5–9	193	14.70
9–19	286	21.78
19–29	145	11.04
>29	62	4.72
No response	56	4.27

Table 36.

Promotion With Title and Compensation for US (Including Employer Changes).

# of Promotions	Frequency	Percent
0–1	220	20.04
2–3	322	29.33
4–5	275	25.05
6–9	156	14.21
10–14	32	2.91
20–29	0	0.00
>29	1	0.09
No response	92	8.38

As Table 37 shows, more than 93% of respondents were employed full-time or owned their own businesses. As shown in Table 38, most respondents (94.67%) were employed throughout the calendar year in 2023. More than half of respondents (51.43%) that were unemployed report their salaries were more than their previous salary, while 14.29% had the same salary and 34.29% had lower salaries than before once they resumed work. Approximately 60% of individuals that responded (32 in total) retired in 2023, defined here as earning less than 50% of their income from active toxicology-related work, or chose not to work. Looking ahead, 80% of respondents do not anticipate retiring from the field of toxicology within the next 5 years.

Table 37.

Primary Employment Status as of 12/31/2023.

Response	Frequency	Percent
Employed full-time (salaried employee)	1158	88.19
Self-employed full-time (owner or principal)	64	4.87
Postdoctoral scholar	2	0.15
Graduate student (full-time)	2	0.15
Employed part-time (salaried or contract employee)	21	1.60
Self-employed part-time (owner or principal)	25	1.90
Other	5	0.38
No response	36	2.74

Table 38.

Employment Status for 2023.

Response	Frequency	Percent
Yes, and employed all of 2023	1243	94.67
Yes, but unemployed during a portion of 2023	36	2.74
No	27	2.06
No response	7	0.53

As the results summarized in Tables 39 and 40 show, networking contributed the most to both new and current employments were the result of networking, responding to an advertisement was the second most successful job search method for both initial and subsequent successes, significant but cited as successful in about half as many cases.

Table 39.

Job Search Methods for Current Position.

Method	Frequency	Percent
Society placement services (e.g., job bank)	87	6.63
Response to advertisement	366	27.88
Networking	611	46.53
Employment agency	24	1.83
Recruiter	76	5.79
Other	102	7.77
No response	47	3.58

Table 40.

Job Search Methods for Initial Full-Time Employment.

Method	Frequency	Percent
Society placement services (e.g., job bank)	27	2.06
Response to advertisement	269	20.49
Networking	615	46.84
Employment agency	14	1.07
Recruiter	181	13.79
Other	160	12.19
No response	47	3.58

Of much more importance in today’s environment, employer provided benefits (starting with health insurance) are a major consideration in evaluating a potential job. Financial benefits (summarized in Table 41) can be extensive, with health insurance being the leader. More than 84% of employers offer the basic four benefits (health, vision and dental insurance, and some form of retirement). Dependent care (for children or adults) is also common. According to respondents, vacation, sick leave, paid time off, maternity/paternity, and family leave (summarized in Table 42) are generally well provided. However, as Table 43 shows, most employees have not taken maternity/paternity leave or family leave in the period covered by this survey. The devil is in the details, of course, for parental and family leave. As Table 44 presents, most often full pay during periods of leave is not provided, and the extent of health-related insurance coverage provided to employees, their spouses/partners, and children varies (Table 45).

Table 41.

Employer Insurance Plans and Coverage.

Insurance Coverage	Doctoral		Masters		Bachelors		Total
	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent
Health insurance	933	92.10	136	94.44	34	94.44	1103	92.46
Vision insurance	875	86.38	121	84.03	32	88.89	1028	86.17
Dental insurance	900	88.85	124	86.11	34	94.44	1058	88.68
Retirement plan a	917	90.52	134	93.06	33	91.67	1084	90.86
Dependent care (child care)	498	49.16	63	43.75	24	66.67	585	49.04
Dependent care (adult care)	484	47.78	47	32.64	18	50.00	549	46.02
Onsite, employer provided medical care	240	23.69	33	22.92	2	5.56	275	23.05

^aAt least partially funded by employer.

Table 42.

Employer Offered Benefits.

Benefit	Yes		No
	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent
Vacation	743	56.59	450	34.27
Sick leave	839	63.90	354	26.96
Annual leave	395	30.08	798	60.78
Paid time off (PTO)	521	39.68	672	51.18
Maternity leave	837	63.75	356	27.11
Paternity leave	761	57.96	432	32.90
Family leave	536	40.82	657	50.04
Unlimited paid time off	198	15.08	995	75.78

Table 43.

Leave Taken 2023.

Leave	Frequency	Percent
Maternity leave	25	1.90
Paternity leave	10	0.76
Family leave	26	1.98
None	1117	85.07
Other (e.g., dependent/elder)	15	1.14
No response	120	9.14

Table 44.

Time Off and Pay Associated With Parental/Family Leave.

Weeks	NA		2-4		4-6		6-8		8-10		10-12		12-14		>14
	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent
Full pay	16	23.19	15	21.74	5	7.25	7	10.14	4	5.80	3	4.35	7	10.14	12	17.39
Partial pay	28	73.68	3	7.89	3	7.89	2	5.26	0	0	0	0	1	2.63	1	2.63
No pay	29	69.05	7	16.67	2	4.76	2	4.76	1	2.38	1	2.38	0	0	0	0

Table 45.

Insurance Plan Coverage.

Benefit	Individual		Individual+Spouse/Partner		Individual+Child(ren)		Family		NA a
	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent
Health insurance	352	29.78	217	18.36	94	7.95	455	38.49	64	5.41
Vision insurance	292	25.66	191	16.78	62	5.45	403	35.41	190	16.70
Dental insurance	311	26.83	213	18.38	75	6.47	434	37.45	126	10.87

^aNot Available.

Across the Years

Since 1989, the toxicology salary survey has been conducted 12 times—approximately every 3 years with most recent data being collected at the end of 2023.

The survey questions have changed over the years, making exact comparisons more difficult in some cases. However, there are clear trends over the 35 years that should be noted. Looking across these years, several trends in the data are clear.

How Much Have Salaries Increased?

The average doctoral starting salaries in 1989 were $44,460 for men and $30,789 for women. All respondents specified a gender.

In 2023, depending on field of employment, starting salaries are $137,000 for females and $140,000 for males for the respondents in the highest responding employment field (pharmaceuticals). For academics, at 3–5 years on the job (the earliest that there is data) for males is $95,000 and for females $75,000, starting salaries have increased more than three-fold for males and four-fold for females over 35 years.

The Salary Gap Between Males and Females Has Decreased

In 1989, starting mean doctoral salaries for males was $44,460. For females, it was $30,789. With 20 plus years’ experience males made $75,190 and females $57,700.0. By 2023, male and female average industrial salaries were comparable across the range of years’ experience. In academia, female entry and early career salaries still tended to lag behind the males across the years of employment (Table 29).

Effect of Certification on Salaries

In 2023, 60.9% of respondents (810 out of 1334) reported having certifications (Table 7). By far, the most common was the DABT (42.8%) with the next highest being the DACVP (9.1%). In 1989, 30.2% of doctrinal respondents reported having DABT certification. The second (1991) survey had a similar (28.8%) incidence of certification. The survey responses are primarily from the US and Canada. While in the early years there was an attempt to do a meaningful analysis of data from other countries, the number of respondents has never been sufficient to support meaningful analysis. There were 72 foreign respondents in 1989, with the largest number being from Japan (18) and the UK (16), allowing for some analysis of salary data for respondents from these countries. Most recently, foreign responses (excluding US and Canada) remained limited, with the UK (18), Switzerland, and Germany (14 each) having double-digit response rates from these three countries. Only Germany has shown a marginal increase in responses.

In 2023, certification was worth an average of $20,000 higher annual salary. This figure also was not influenced by gender. The figure remains approximately consistent regardless of years of experience.

Respondents by Gender

In 1989, PhD respondents included 1334 males and 327 females. In 2023, there were 614 males and 666 females.

Trends in Employment Sectors

In 1989, academic positions (526) were the most numerous for doctoral level respondents followed by pharmaceutical (239), federal government (202), contract lab (175), and chemical industry (169).

By 2023, consulting was the largest, followed by academic, pharmaceutical, and federal government. The chemical industry has shown the greatest reduction in the number of responses.

Discussion and Conclusions

The current survey results point to a number of different trends that deserve attention by major professional societies, and add some insights into the job market, career path, and the conduct of future toxicology salary surveys. First, although the situation continues to improve for most entry-level and early-career positions, women continue to be compensated at a lower level than their male counterparts though their overall representation in the doctoral level of responses has steadily increased becoming a majority for the first time in this years’ survey. Second, salaries as a whole have increased in the field, but the most impressive differences are not by geographic location of place of employment, but rather by type of employer. Additionally, certification continues to play a significant positive role in compensation. Periods of unemployment remained low in 2023, with most unemployment lasting 6 months or less as shown in Table 46. When reemployed, most earned a higher salary than prior to unemployment (see Table 47). Most employers of respondents (over 91%) provided health insurance and retirement savings plans for employees.

Table 46.

Reported Period of Unemployment in 2023.

Time Unemployed	Frequency	Percent
<3 months	21	56.76
3 to 6 months	12	32.43
>6 to <9 months	4	10.81
>9 months	0	0.00

Table 47.

Salary Received When Reemployed.

Salary	Frequency	Percent
More than previous salary	18	51.43
Same as previous salary	5	14.29
Less than previous salary	12	34.29

Furthermore, the inclusion of those who were not holders of doctorates was insufficient to allow for meaningful analyses. In recent years, surveys were not distributed to regional SOT chapters severely limiting non-doctoral responses. The data collection for the next survey should be revised to improve the range of coverage of potential respondents as well as decrease the timing from survey distribution to publication.

Finally, the lag between survey responses being provided by the main participant organization, the availability of data for analysis, and the publication of these data has previously been excessive. With this years’ survey, however, the lag was reduced to less than 8 months.

Proposals for Improvements of Future Surveys

Future surveys should return to including members of the regional SOT chapters so as to again capture data from those who are not members of the national society. This would serve to represent (and engage) particularly those who have degrees less than doctoral and otherwise may not yet qualify for full SOT membership. This population includes both many of those employed in laboratory positions and those who strive to advance to full membership.