Bethany Degg

	(Image Credit: Steve Allen/Getty Images)

 salary survey shows that the average salary has remained essentially static overall, which is welcome news after last year's drop. But not all sectors and groups are doing better.
	

	It can be hard to gauge whether or not your employment conditions are fair, and whether you are earning as much as you deserve - or as much as your colleagues do, be they down the hall or across the country.

 salary survey helps answer those questions, and also provides an overall sense of the job market for spectroscopists. This year, the top-level result is fairly positive, but the benefits are not enjoyed by everyone. And a few details hint at some additional underlying concerns and trends.

Salaries Stable Overall, but Not for Everyone

	This year, our survey results show overall stability in the spectroscopy job market, with a very slight increase (0.9%) in the average salary overall, from $81,990 in 2014 to $82,733 in 2015. Following last year's 7.3% drop (Table I), this year's small uptick is welcome news. The improvement, however, was not shared evenly across all segments and groups (Table II).

	For example, even though the highest average salary is found in industry (58% of our sample), this year's average of $85,219 is down 6.4% from last year. In academia (26% of our sample), average salaries are also down - 6.9% lower than 2014. On the other hand, salaries for spectroscopists working at government or nationally funded laboratories (15% of our survey) went up 5.8%, but the average for this group ($79,741), is still a chunk lower than in industry.

	We also see uneven results when we look at different age groups and education levels. As expected, respondents holding a PhD degree earn the highest average salary, but this group showed a disturbing drop in average salary between 2014 and 2015- from $97,936 to $88,724 (down 9.4%). This decrease may be partly explained by an increase in our sample of younger respondents 

31% of our respondents this year are under 40, compared to only 20% last year

which likely includes many newly minted PhDs. But the idea that spectroscopists with more experience earn more did not hold true across all age groups. Respondents in the age range of 50–60 earned the highest salary, and showed a whopping 11% increase in average salary, from $86,003 to $95,161. But those over 60 saw a significant drop, from $100,117 to $90,209 (down 9.9%), putting their average below that of the 50–60 age group.

	There is also a great deal of variation in the average salaries according to job role, as shown in Table IV. The best-paid job role is technical director (2.7% of respondents) with an average salary of $122,134. Laboratory directors and managers, who represent the largest proportion of respondents (17.5%) also do quite well, with an average salary of $87,006. The lowest-paid job role is post-doctoral researcher (2% of respondents) with an average salary of $32,005.

More Part-Time Workers and More Post-Docs

	In addition to the fact that not all sectors and groups benefited from this year's average stabilization of salaries, a few other disturbing trends appear in our results (Table III). First, full-time employment has decreased over the past three years, from 92.8% in 2012 to 86.5% in 2015 (or from 94.7% to 88.9%, if we include full-time contractors). Second, in academia, the proportion of post-doctoral researchers and graduate students has increased from 0.3% in 2012 to 4.5% in 2015. Third, unemployment, although still low among our respondents, has tripled from 0.6% in 2012 to 1.9% in 2015. In addition, the gender gap among our respondents has widened and is discussed in further detail later.

	The other negative trend seen in our survey - though by no means new, nor unique to spectroscopy - is increasing workloads. The majority of respondents (64%) reported that workloads have increased over the past year (Figure 1), mainly because of increased business, new equipment, or staffing cuts, or a combination of those factors. A handful said the main cause was "increased responsibilities," though it was unclear whether those new responsibilities included a promotion or a raise. Quite a few academics said they have to teach larger or more classes than in the past - in some cases because of administrative goals to make faculty "more productive" - and some mentioned that they are doing more research with the same funding, meaning they cannot afford to hire as many post-docs to share the workload.


	Figure 1: The most common reasons for increased workloads.

Satisfied, Nevertheless - Though a Bit Restless

	Surprisingly, although 64% of respondents reported a heavier workload, only 53% said their stress levels had increased. And despite the increased workloads and the other concerns revealed by the survey, respondents remain happy overall. More than three-quarters of respondents report that they are either satisfied (58%) or very satisfied (18%) with their jobs.

	Nevertheless, our data show that spectroscopists are changing jobs more than in the past, as is generally true across the economy. One-third of our respondents are planning to look for a new job over the next year. The drivers for this job seeking are a mix of dissatisfaction and ambition. Of those planning to look for a new job, 59% are seeking a higher salary, and 53% are looking for a new challenge. Several other reasons were given by those seeking new jobs:

		Desire for a change in employer type, 21%

	On the flip side, some respondents are staying put despite job dissatisfaction. Common reasons included positive factors such as good colleagues, hours, and salary. A few mentioned negative reasons, such as fears of facing age discrimination if they try to find another job. A handful confessed that they are hanging in there until they retire.

	The location of a job is another key factor when deciding whether it is time to move on. Many of our respondents are staying in jobs they are not satisfied with because the location is convenient. And although these results suggest that many people would not readily make a big geographic move to improve their employment situation, there are some important regional variations in average salaries and job opportunities across and outside the United States, as seen below and in Table V.

	In the United States, the Northeast (22% of respondents) has held its top salary position for the second year in a row, albeit with a dip in average salary from $106,318 in 2014 to $103,504 in 2015. The Southwest (16% of respondents) remains in second place for salaries, but the average in this region has decreased for several years, falling 8.5% in the last year, from $90,271 to $82,546.

	The Northwest (5% of respondents) has risen to the third position, with an average salary reported of $79,027 - an 8% increase compared to 2014 ($73,510). The Southeast (18% of respondents) has fallen to fourth place, with a reported average salary of $77,381 (down from $82,175 in 2014). The Midwest (20% of respondents) is in last place, with an average salary of $77,193 in 2015 (up from $73,510 in 2014).

	A fifth of respondents (20%) were from locations outside the United States, primarily in Europe (Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, and the UK), Australia and New Zealand, China, India, Japan, and Mexico. The average salary of these respondents - $61,006 - is markedly lower than in the United States. Multiple factors are responsible for this disparity, including cost of living and the variations in how health care and other core services are provided.

	There is still a persistent gap in the average salaries of men and women. This year, the average salary for male respondents is $83,199 (down 0.2% from 2014), compared to $74,584 for women (down 6%). In 2014, the difference in average salary for men and women was $3995; this has more than doubled, to $8615.


	Figure 2: Respondents in positions of management. Inside circle: Female respondents. Outside circle: Male respondents.

	Men also continue to dominate management, with more than half of male respondents (52%) in a position of management compared to only 35% of female respondents (Figure 2). And male managers make more than female managers - $86,616 for men versus $76,926 for women (Table VI).

	Figure 3 shows that 40% of male respondents hold a PhD compared to 34% of female respondents; however, male respondents with a PhD have an average salary of $94,108 compared to $75,652 for female PhD holders (Table VI). A higher level of education doesn't seem to have the same impact for women as it does for men.


	Figure 3: Highest education level attained according to gender.

	The biggest pay gap between the sexes is seen in academia, where the average salary is $67,918 for men and $50,428 for women. In government and nationally funded laboratories, average salaries are $84,694 and $76,926, respectively. Industry is the one sector where the average salary for women ($89,172) exceeds that of men ($85,877).

	Despite the only very modest increase in average salary overall, the salary drops for many groups, and the uncertainty of the employment market, half of respondents would recommend their career to a recent graduate, and only 10% would not. Interestingly, however, 40% of our participants responded "maybe" to this question. Given the high levels of job satisfaction expressed by our respondents, this ambivalence about recommending this path to young people may reflect concerns about the future of spectroscopy careers.

	We also asked respondents for the best career advice that they had received. Many common and expected themes emerged, such as "work hard," "be honest," and "love what you do." A selection of other responses appears in a box on below.

	This year's survey shows a modest overall improvement in average salaries, but in many sectors and groups, the averages actually went down. In addition, the percentage of full-time workers decreased, workloads went up, and the pay gap between men and women widened.

	Yet in spite of it all, job satisfaction levels among spectroscopists remain high, perhaps reflecting a repeating refrain in the career advice shared by our respondents: "Love what you do."

 is an Associate Editor, based in Chester, UK. Direct correspondence to 

Articles

The latest Spectroscopy salary survey shows that the average salary has remained essentially static overall, which is welcome news after last year's drop. But not all sectors and groups are doing better.

2015 Salary Survey: Modest Gains, but Not for Everyone

Our annual salary survey took a look at the employment markets faced by spectroscopists in 2014, and the results were surprising. The average salary has decreased for the first time since 2008, with government and nationally funded laboratory employees experiencing the biggest drop in average salary. 

editorial team has taken a snapshot of the employment market for spectroscopists for more than 11 years. Over this time, the market has remained stable with some fluctuations here and there. This year, however, we report a drop in average salary of 7% from $88,018 in 2013 to $81,990 in 2014. This is a very different picture from the brighter one presented in 2013 and the factors contributing to it will be highlighted and examined here. 

The survey was released to subscribers over the months of October and November 2013. A total of 572 respondents began the survey and 87.6% completed it. The format and questions of the survey were identical to those formulated in 2013 with the option to skip questions enabled. That meant that differing numbers of responses were collected for each question. The data collected are presented as percentages rather than raw numbers and should be considered when making comparisons between figures. Here are some overall statistics from the data: 					

Age range: 20% <40 years; 26% 40–50 years; 33% 50–60 years; and 22% 60+ years.

Employment status: 90% in full-time employment.

Primary field of analysis: 57% analytical chemistry; 9% environmental, 7% pharmaceuticals; 4% agriculture/food; 3% biotechnology; 2% electronics/semiconductors; 2% energy and petroleum; 2% forensics and narcotics; 5% instrumental design/development; 2% medical biology; 2% metallurgy; 3% organic chemicals; <2% plastics/polymers/rubber, <2% ceramics; and <2% inorganic chemicals. (See Figure 1 for comparison to 2013).  

Area of employment: 56% commercial; 28% academic; and 16% government or nationally funded laboratory.

Education level: 44% doctoral degree; 23% master's degree; 29% bachelor's degree; and 4% associate degree.

Figure 1: The six biggest areas of expertise: (a) Inside chart: Proportion of respondents in 2013; (b) Outside chart: Proportion of respondents in 2014.						

As shown in Figure 1, the six biggest specialty areas reported have remained the same as in 2013. Two interesting points to note are that the proportion of respondents who said their primary field of expertise is in the pharmaceutical industry has decreased from 11% in 2013 to 7% in 2014, whereas the proportion of respondents who said their primary field of expertise is analytical chemistry has increased from 49% in 2013 to 57% in 2014. Furthermore, the proportion of respondents focused on agriculture/food analysis increased from 2% in 2013 to 4% in 2014. 

Before looking at the data in greater detail, one important event in 2013 to acknowledge is the change to funding of scientific research in the United States (U.S.). In 2011 the U.S. government passed the Budget Control Act, seeking to cut $38 billion in nondefense spending (1). The law took effect in March 2013 and led to the automatic across-the-board government spending cuts popularly known as the "sequester." According to a survey of more than 3700 scientists performed by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, the effects of the cuts have been far-reaching in scientific fields (2). The survey documented that "55% of respondents had a colleague who had lost a job or expected to in the near future."  

This year's decline in the average salary from $88,018 in 2013 to $81,990 — a 7% drop — is only the second time that a decrease has been observed since 2002 (Table I). Table II digs into this decline a little deeper, showing average salaries in 2013 compared to 2014 according to gender, employment sector, highest education level achieved, and age. Some responses are highlighted below: 									

16% of respondents working in government or nationally funded laboratories reported an average salary of $75,387 (25% lower than in 2013). 

More than half of respondents (56%) working in commercial industry reported an average salary of $91,078 (4% lower than in 2013). 

More than a quarter of respondents (28%) employed in academia reported an average salary of $67,804 (5% lower than in 2013).

PhD holders reported the highest average salary with an average salary of $97,936 (5% lower than in 2013).

Master's degree holders reported an average salary of $72,144 (13% lower than in 2013).

Bachelor's holders reported an average salary of $73,188 (11% lower than in 2013).

Table I: Average salary between 2013 and 2014						

These responses indicate that respondents employed in government or nationally funded laboratories have experienced the biggest decrease in average salary compared to other industry sectors. It also appears that a higher level of education helps protect respondents from decreases in salary. 

Table II: Average salary between 2013 and 2014. Biggest change observed within government-funded laboratories. NB: Government average salary was $83,900 in 2012.			

The longer the period of service with one company, the greater the financial reward, as shown in Table III. The lowest average salary ($80,339) is reported by respondents who have been with their current employer less than 10 years, whereas the highest average salary of $96,975 is reported by respondents with more than 40 years service with their company.  

Table III: Time in current employment 2012â2014.			

However, Figure 2 shows that the numbers of respondents who stay with the same employer for this length of time are significantly declining.  

Figure 2: Time in current employment 2012â2014.									

In 2014, 45% of respondents reported service of less than 10 years (average salary $80,339), compared to 18% in 2013, and 20% in 2012. 

In 2014, 2% of respondents reported service of more than 40 years (average salary $96,875), compared to 5% in 2013, and 10% in 2012. 

If spectroscopists are moving between employers, this could be a factor in the decline in salary seen this year. As the proportion of respondents reporting service of only 10 years or less with their current employer has more than doubled, the proportion of respondents at the lowest average salary has more than doubled compared to 2013. This could be a key factor in why the average salary has dropped so dramatically.  

Employer Investment and Employee Satisfaction

It is a fair assumption that employer investment will improve the satisfaction of employees, but in a period of tightening budgets, investing in employees is generally not a priority. Equally, the fact that an increasing proportion of respondents are changing employers within 10 years suggests that investment may need to be made in different ways.  

We asked respondents to indicate the financial incentives that employers offer, and documented the following responses: 					

81% of respondents receive healthcare coverage through their employer (down from 90% in 2013)

56% have a retirement or pension plan (60% in 2013)

These responses indicate the provision of financial incentives has decreased over the last year. However, we also investigated the provision of training by employers — whether or not employees are invited to attend in-house seminars and training courses — and found the following: 					

More than half of respondents, 67%, are invited to seminars (44% in 2013)

85% are invited to training courses (55% in 2013).

These increases in the level of inhouse training may reflect the finding that employees are moving between jobs more often than in previous years and therefore require more training. 

In addition to benefits and training, another important factor in employee satisfaction is workload. Figure 3 shows that over half of our respondents, 58%, stated that their workload had increased compared to a year ago. The reasons that were given: 									

Figure 3: Perceived changes in workload together with the reasons given for the increase in both 2013 and 2014.						

Regardless of the changes in the way that employers are investing and workloads are increasing, the majority of respondents (75%) reported that they were satisfied with their jobs.  

Our annual salary survey takes a look at the employment markets faced by spectroscopists in 2014. The results are surprising.

2014 Spectroscopy Salary Survey: Change is Afoot

	The Urine Metabolome Database (UMDB) (www.urinemetabolome.ca) containing detailed information on over 3000 metabolites has been launched following the comprehensive quantitative metabolome characterization of urine by scientists at the University of Alberta, Canada.

 The project is part of the on-going Human Metabolome Project launched in 2005 by Genome Canada and Genome Alberta, and has so far received $600 million in funding from the Canadian government.

 was set up to build a freely available database of all small molecule metabolites found in human biofluids. David Wishart of the University of Alberta has been working on the project for over seven years, previously studying the metabolome of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood. Wishart and his team of 20 researchers set out to demonstrate that it was possible to measure hundreds of compounds in urine, while making the data available to the global research community in the form of a searchable on-database. Wishart told 

: “Our goal with fully characterizing the human urine metabolome was to establish a baseline of what would normally be found (and at what concentrations) in a healthy adult urine specimen.”

	Urine has long been favoured as a sample material by metabolomics researchers: Easy to obtain in large volumes, sterile, proteinâfree, but yet chemically complex it provides an ideal “fingerprint” of the body’s metabolic processes. Wishart told 

 that urine diagnosis is not a new concept, rather it has been used for more than 3000 years - in the Middle Ages, most physicians relied on the colour, smell, and in some cases taste of patient urine to make a diagnosis. It is still used today in pregancy tests and kidney function tests, and more recently metabolomic fingerprinting of urine has been suggested in the detection of cancers.

	The study relied heavily on a combination of method development and analysis with computer software design. Wishart stated that data mining software was written to scan thousands of papers, journals, and books to find urinary compounds found or reported by other scientists over the past 100 years. Mass spectrometry (MS), chromatography, and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy approaches were also used to analyse urine samples.

	Urine was collected from 22 healthy volunteers and analysed using six analytical platforms. Wishart emphasises that there was a great deal of method development involved to allow the identification of hundreds of compounds within the samples. Highâresolution NMR spectroscopy identified 209 compounds (108 unique); gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) identified 179 (89 unique); direct flow injection tandem mass spectrometry (DFI–LC–MS–MS) identified 127 (98 unique); inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP–MS) identified 40 (40 unique); high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with ultraviolet (UV) identified 6 (6 unique); and HPLC with fluorescence detection (FD) identified 4 (3 unique).

	The data collected from the chemical analyses were combined with the literature data mined to build a compendium of all known and measured urine metabolites in human urine. This is housed within the publicly accessible UMDB.

 about the importance of the Human Metabolome Project, Wishat said: “At some level, we liken the work we’ve been doing as similar to what was done for the Human Genome Project.” He expanded: “Geneticists needed the ‘baseline’ DNA sequence for the average human genome. Once that was determined, they could then start discovering all the genetic mutations that caused human disease. As a result, hundreds of disease genes have been discovered and hundreds of new diagnostic or predictive genetic tests have emerged. We think the same thing could happen with urine, especially now that its chemical composition is known.” Whether or not the Human Metabolome Project has the same impact as the Human Genome Project remains to be seen; however, this is yet another step towards the advance of personalized medicine aided by analytical chemistry. - B.D.

	1. S. Bouatra, F. Aziat, R. Mandal, A.C. Guo, M.R. Wilson, et al. 

	3. Pilot Study Demonstrates Detection of Bladder Cancer with Prototype “Scent Device”, 

http://www.chromatographyonline.com/node/202746

The Urine Metabolome Database (UMDB) (www.urinemetabolome.ca) containing detailed information on over 3000 metabolites has been launched following the comprehensive quantitative metabolome characterization of urine by scientists at the University of Alberta, Canada.

Urine Metabolome Database Launched

If asked by a young scientist considering career options, would you recommend your career? Over half of respondents to this survey said they would. Here, our annual salary survey takes a look at the salaries and working conditions for spectroscopists to find out why.

For more than a decade, spectroscopists have been invited to take part in the annual 

 salary survey. Over this period there has been great change, and this year is no exception. With the global economy looking a little bleak to say the least, it is a pleasant surprise to find that the future looks a little brighter for spectroscopists. With salaries continuing to rise (see Table I), satisfaction levels are high, and generally the outlook is good. 

Figure 1: The six biggest specialty areas of respondents: (a) inside chart: number of respondents in each specialty area in 2012; (b) outside chart: number in 2013. 			

This year, the survey had a healthy number of respondents, a total of 471, with 89% completing all questions. As individuals have differing limits on the information that they are willing to share, the survey allowed for the skipping of questions. This choice was intended to reduce the risk of false results, and it resulted in differing numbers of responses for some questions. Within this article, data are presented as percentages to allow comparison between data. The profile of the respondents is shown in the breakdown below: 					

Age of respondent: 18% <40 years; 30% 40–50 years; 31% 50–60 years; and 21% 60+ years. 

91% of spectroscopists are employed full time.

Primary field of analysis: 49% analytical chemistry; 11% pharmaceuticals; 8% environmental; 6% instrument design and development; 4% organic chemicals; 4% biotechnology; 4% forensics or narcotics; 3% plastics, polymers, and rubber; 2% agriculture and food; 2% medical or biological; 2% petroleum or energy; 2% inorganic chemicals; 2% metallurgy, and less than 1% biotechnology. (Refer to Figure 2 for comparison between 2012 and 2013.)

Area of employment: The biggest employment area is private industry, over half of respondents (53.23%). 

Education level: 42% doctoral degree; 24% master's degree; 31% bachelor's degree, and 4% associate degree.

The average salary reported this year was $88,018, an increase of $2958 compared to last year's average. Table I lists the average salaries reported for 2002–2012. Looking at the split between the genders, the average salary for women has increased by 9% from 2012 to 2013 — from $71, 988 to $81,163 — whereas for men it has increased by 5% from 2012 to 2013 — from $88,468 to $93,081. 

Table I: Average salaries 2002â2013 			

This year's level of overall increase is considerably higher than that of last year, indicating that the prospects for spectroscopists are improving.   

With a bleak economy in many regions, it is no surprise that companies are cutting back on resources. One of the biggest expenses for any employer is staffing, and so the survey set out to address whether employees had experienced an increase in their workloads over the course of the past year, and if so, what the causes were. This year, 63% of respondents indicated that their workload had increased over the past year, compared to 59% in 2012; 3% reported a decrease, compared to 5% last year. The major reasons for increased workload were increased business (36%), staffing cuts (24%), new equipment (18%), and new regulations (16%). Other responses included the loss of staff without replacement, reduced funding, and increased employer regulations.  

Yet it seems that an increase in workload does not always mean an increase in employee stress levels. If a spectroscopist is happy with her employer and has a good working relationship with her team, perhaps taking on extra work doesn't seem so onerous. So even though 63% of respondents reported an increased workload over last year, only 52% reported an increase in their stress levels. Nevertheless, the number reporting increased stress is up slightly from last year's number of 49%. 

Big decisions that shape one's career are made early on, when deciding on the subject and the level of education to pursue. Our survey results show a strong correlation between education level and average salary (refer to Figure 3), from an average salary of $64,196 for spectroscopists with an associate degree up to an average of $102,017 for those with doctorates. The percentage of those in management positions also goes up with each education level, reaching 50% for those with doctorates. In open-ended questions, a number of respondents also stated that PhD holders are more employable than bachelor's degree holders within the field of spectroscopy. 

Figure 2: Satisfaction increases with the offering of training. Blue bars			

But across the salary scale, spectroscopists are a very happy lot. Overall, 73% of respondents are either highly satisfied or satisfied with their employment, and 27% feel either dissatisfied or highly dissatisfied (refer to Figure 2)

But what is curious is that this figure of 73% stating overall job satisfaction is much higher than the specific satisfaction levels with salary or nonmonetary recognition. 

Figure 3: The value of education. The bar chart shows the relationship between education level and the type of employer. The pie charts show the 			

In terms of monetary recognition, 56% of respondents feel fairly rewarded, with those with bachelor's degrees expressing the highest degree of satisfaction, as follows: 					

Asked if satisfied with their level of nonmonetary recognition, 57% of respondents said yes. The breakdown in order of satisfaction is as follows: 					

These responses were a little surprising, as it showed that increasing levels of education did not correlate with satisfaction with one's salary or recognition. Associate's-degree holders were the least satisfied with monetary recognition received, but were the most satisfied with their nonmonetary recognition. Bachelor's-degree holders were the most satisfied with their salaries, but the least pleased with their nonmonetary recognition. Doctoral- and master's-degree holders were in the middle in both cases.  

Feeling that you have the support of your employer is important. A simple way employers can improve the satisfaction of employees is to offer benefits. Of the respondents, 90% receive health care coverage through their jobs; 71% have a 401k; 60% have a retirement or pension plan; and 10% get child care benefits. Some respondents receive additional benefits, such as stock purchase plans, membership to fitness clubs, and life insurance; 5% of our respondents receive no benefits. 

Another way employers can make employees feel valued is to invest in their career development. More than half of respondents, 53%, are offered training by their employers, with 55% gaining the benefit of training courses, 44% attending seminars, and 1% attending web seminars. To check the connection between employer-offered training and job satisfaction levels, we cross-tabulated those answers with satisfaction ratings of employees (Figure 2). For respondents offered training by their employers, 78% are either satisfied or highly satisfied. For respondents not offered training by their employer, 68% are either satisfied or highly satisfied. So it appears that the investment pays off. 

However, this year's survey showed some cuts are being made in employee training. Some respondents suggested that the employment opportunities are excellent for spectroscopists who are highly skilled, but that their companies are reducing resources for training inexperienced employees.  

The inequality between the salaries of men and women has been well documented by previous salary surveys, and this year is no exception: The average salary for men in our survey was $93,081, compared to $81,163 for women. We did document, however, some key factors that probably affect those numbers (Figures 4 and 5). 

Figure 4: (a) Type of employer, by gender. (b) The education level of respondents, by gender. 			

These factors including type of employer (56% of men are employed by industry, the highest-paying employer type, compared to 44% of women), education level (48% of our male respondents have a doctorate, compared to 34% of female respondents), and the length of one's current employment (30% of men in our survey have been in their current employment for 30 years, compared to 21% of women who have been there that long). 

Figure 5: The length of time in current employment for male and female respondents.			

As previously mentioned, the gender divide has existed for many years, and it has been documented by 

 It will most likely take a period of years for the balance to be addressed because ultimately, education and experience level are fundamental to salary.  

The times of staying in one job are disappearing, and it is now very common to change jobs several times during the course of a career. Several

respondents commented that spectroscopists have good employment opportunities. Respondents also feel that the technology continues to advance and the use of analytical techniques is increasing, indicating good job prospects for the future. One respondent referred to analytical chemistry as a "growing piece in a giant puzzle."  

This year, we once again asked respondents about their intentions to look for a new job. Just over a quarter of respondents, 26%, are planning to look for alternative employment within the next year — a 5% increase over 2012. The reasons given for making a move were 					

The results from Spectroscopy's annual salary survey examines working conditions and more.

Bethany Degg

Articles

2015 Salary Survey: Modest Gains, but Not for Everyone

2014 Spectroscopy Salary Survey: Change is Afoot

Urine Metabolome Database Launched

2013 Salary Survey: The Future is Bright