Prachi Patel-Predd

The 2006 Spectroscopy Salary and Employment survey was conducted by research analysts at Advanstar Communications, as opposed to past years, when we contracted an independent research firm. This year's survey is more comprehensive and the samples are larger. As a result, you may notice a sharp variation in figures compared to last year.

With increasing demands from the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, the promise of more science and security spending, rising process-control applications, and the looming July 1 deadline of the European Union's RoHS and WEEE directives, growth in the spectroscopy industry is unlikely to slow down anytime soon.  

At the same time, the market isn't growing like faster paced businesses such as information technology and communications. The multi-billion dollar spectroscopy market remains constant. "Process analytical technologies [PAT] that are used in the pharmaceutical industry are doing well but overall the chemical industry is pretty flat as is the food industry and polymers," says Emil Ciurczak, chief technical officer at Cadrai Technology Group in Bel Air, Maryland.  

The 2006 Spectroscopy Salary and Employment Survey reflects this steadiness. This year, a total of 593 spectroscopists responded to the survey. Of these, about 20% were female, and a little more than a third were between the ages of 46 and 55, forming the largest age group. A large fraction of the respondents hold higher degrees, with about 40% holding Ph.D.s and 20% holding master's degrees.   

The unemployment rate among this year's participants went down to 1.5%, as opposed to 2.4% last year. Most of those employed, about 60%, work in private industry, with academia forming the next biggest group. 

As opposed to previous years, the Spectroscopy salary survey was done in-house this year. For this reason, readers may notice that numbers vary somewhat. 

Out of a total of 585 people who chose to divulge their salaries, the average annual salary this year is approximately $77,980, a jump up from last year's average of $72,920. While last year's increase of $780 was the lowest increase in five years, this year's increase of more than $5000 is the largest in the past five years.  

The reason for this sharp increase could be that younger workers are being laid off, says Ciurczak. "This goes back somewhere into early 80s," he says, "If you've got two people doing the same job and you are trying to save money, if one is making 25,000 and one is making 50,000, which one would you fire? [Companies] got rid of the one making the most money." This resulted in age discrimination lawsuits worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Currently, many companies go the other way—they fire younger, less experienced employees. "They're making less, but now the average salary is higher because the people with lower salaries have been let go." 

According to David Ball, professor of chemistry at Cleveland State University in Ohio, the reason for the spike in average salary could be a shortage of viable candidates for specialist positions in spectroscopy. "If less people are going around to fill these positions that need certain qualifications, people with experience in the field could command greater pay," he says. 

Most of the respondents (15.2%) earned between $46,000 and $55,000 this year. This is a noticeable decrease in the most frequent salary range last year, when 8.7% of the respondents earned between $60,000 and $65,000. The second largest group this year (14.2%) follows closely behind the largest group, but their salary range is nearly double at a range between $86,000 and $100,000. 

The number of people reporting an annual salary of less than $25,000 has gone down to 2.9% from last year's 4.5%. On the other hand, 4% are earning more than $150,000 a year, a slight increase from 3% in 2005. 

Military Sector Takes Top Spot; Salary Gains Across the Board

This year, the survey includes the military as a separate employment category. Military employees formed the smallest group of spectroscopists in the survey, with just five people, but at $84,000, their average annual salary was the highest among all the respondents. Most of these respondents make between $86,000 and $100,000 per year. 

Spectroscopists working for the private industry sector—the largest group of respondents (61%)—are the second highest paid on average, with a salary of $81,880. This is an increase of $3710 from last year's salary of $78,170, and a $10,000 increase since 2003, when the average was $71,770. But industrial spectroscopists most frequently earn within a lower salary range ($46,000–$55,000), closely followed by those earning between $86,000–$100,000 (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1:  Salary summary by job sector, 2004â2006 (Government and Military jobs are grouped together; in the survey they were listed as separate categories).			

Government-employed spectroscopists' (15% of all participants) average salary jumps up to $75,750 this year from a figure of $68,700 last year. With this gain of more than $7000, their salary surpasses that of academic spectroscopists. Most often, those working in national laboratories or for other government institutions make between $66,000 and $75,000 annually. 

Ciurczak believes that these high numbers could be a result of the long time spectroscopists retain their government or military positions. "If you're in there you're going to keep getting promotions," he says. The average rank of employees is very high when they leave and higher levels mean more money. This has nothing to do with robustness of the economy."   

For the first time in three years, the average salary of academic spetroscopists increased. Not only that, at nearly $69,250, their pay is significantly more higher than 2003 ($62,130), after which it had fallen to $59,850 in 2004 and then again to $54,640 last year.     

The survey indicates that in general, spectroscopists make more as their age increases (see Figure 2). Those over 55 years of age make about $88,200 on average, while most of them (29%) make between $101,000 and $125,000. 

Figure 2: Salary summary by age, 2004â2006.			

People in the age group of 46–55, which is the largest among this year's participants, make on average about $83,300 a year. For most of these people, salaries are spread out pretty consistently between $46,000 and $125,000, with the largest group earning in the highest range. 

For the age group of 36–45, the average annual pay is approximately $71,000. Thirty% of the people in this age group make between $86,000 and $100,000. Respondents between the ages of 26 and 35 earn an average of $55,600 a year, but most frequently making a figure lower than that.  

The youngest age group of 21–25 years, which is also quite significantly the smallest group of respondents, seems to defy the more money with more age rule. They get $63,300 on average, and a few among them make more than $150,000. 

The salary survey shows that higher degrees matter for spectroscopists just as much as age does. Those with higher degrees earn more overall.  

Multiple Ph.D. holders have the highest average salary of $95,600 per year, while respondents with one Ph.D. (40%) earn a yearly average of $91,850. In addition, most Ph.D.'s make between $101,000 and $125,000, and an overwhelming majority (approximately 83%) of those earning $126,000–$150,000 hold the degree. The salary for Ph.D.'s has gone up consistently in the past three years. Last year, the average salary was $85,400, in 2004 it was $83,690, and in 2002 it was $81,900.  

The average salaries for people with master's degrees—the next highest earners on average, with a salary of $75,050—also show an upward trend in the past three years. This year's figure is an increase over last year's average of $71,450. In 2004 and 2003, the figures were $69,680 and $65,510 respectively. Most master's degree holders make $86,000–$100,000 per year.  

Last year, respondents with bachelor's degrees saw a decrease of $3100 in their average salary, going from $62,130 in 2004 to $59,030 last year. But this year, they did not just make up for that decrease, they almost doubled it, making an average of $64,560. Most respondents with B.S. degrees, about a quarter, made between $46,000 and $55,000.  

Once again this year, the average salary of female spectroscopists lags behind their male counterparts. While the salary for both males and females increased this year, the increase in female spectroscopists' salary was less than that of males (see Figure 3). 

Figure 3: Salary summary by gender, 2004â2006.			

The average salary of a male spectroscopist will be about $80,660 in 2006. A female spectroscopist, on the other hand, earns $68,300. This salary gap of more than $12,000 across genders is an increase over last year's gap of $10,000.  

The annual pay for a male spectroscopist increased by a small amount between 2004 and 2005, going from $75,350 to $75,640. As opposed to this, the increase from 2005 to this year is $5020.  

The situation is reversed for female spectroscopists. Between 2004 and 2005, they saw an average salary increase of  $6770. But from 2005's figure of $65,450 to this year, their salary has increased by $2850. 

"It is unfortunate that female salaries are lagging behind if that's the only difference," says Ball. "Of course, there may be other reasons for this difference...it's going to take time for gender inequities to completely erase themselves. But I hope things are changing and that they are changing for the better."  

Coastal Salaries Remain Highest, Midwest Salaries Rise

As was the case last year, the Pacific/Pacific Northwest is the highest paying region according to this year's survey. On average, spectroscopists working on the West Coast earn $78,590 a year. This is a $3000 decrease from last year's $81,590, and it marks the first decrease in three years (see Figure 4). 

Figure 4:  Salary summary by geographical location, 2004â2006.			

Once again, spectroscopists in the Northeast/Middle Atlantic region follow the Pacific in terms of highest pay. Their average salary is $76,880, which is a very slight increase over last year's figure of $76,830.  

The Western-Central region made a big comeback this year after a $3650 salary decrease from 2003 to 2005, jumping up two places from last year's fifth to this year's third highest paying region. Average salary in the region increased by $12,070 from an average of $64,590 last year to $76,660 this year.    

In the Midwest/Great Lakes region, salary went down from an average of $72,540 in 2005 to this year's figure of $68,350. The Southern/South Atlantic region got bumped down to last place with spectroscopists earning $67,960, a decrease of $1000 since last year. 

Increased business on the one hand and tough competition on the other create some interesting dynamics in the workplace for spectroscopists.  

Articles

This year's survey of salaries and job attitudes reveals that the market seems stable, but many spectroscopists are feeling the pressure of the economy at work.

2006 Salary Survey: Salary Changes and Job Satisfaction in the Spectroscopy Community

Most of the 2.2 billion dollars increase in the 2006 federal research and development budget will go towards defense weapons development and human space exploration technologies, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

This might be a sign that the focus of U.S. research spending is shifting from basic, exploratory research to a more predictable and readily applicable kind. Together with a research budget that is not keeping up with inflation, scientists believe that this could affect the country's ability to lead science and technology innovation in the future.  

				"The shift in the federal research investment portfolio [is] troubling...basic research needs to be a higher priority," says Ken Dill, professor of pharmaceutical chemistry at the University of California (San Francisco, CA). 			

The change in research funding priorities affects analytical chemists and spectroscopists just as much as it affects scientists in any other discipline. The non-profit Coalition for Bridging the Sciences, of which Dill is a co-founder, will address these concerns at a special symposium entitled "Funding US Research: Challenges and Opportunities" that will take place during this year's Pittsburgh Conference on Analytical Chemistry and Spectroscopy (PittCon). 

In addition to Dill, the symposium's speakers are Arthur Ellis, director of the division of chemistry at the National Science Foundation (NSF); Roderic Pettigrew, director of the National Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; and John Porter, who has served on the U.S. Congress for 21 years and is familiar with the funding landscape in the government. Through the speakers' different perspectives, the symposium will provide a broad look at various issues related to research spending, and what they mean for practicing chemists. 

Most of the national science agencies cover chemistry, providing generous funds for R&D in various areas such as nanotechnology, materials science and biochemistry. But the influx of money into chemistry is unlikely to increase in the future because of federal budget constraints, Dill says.  

A slowdown in growth is already apparent at the NSF, where Ellis says the division of chemistry budget has been relatively flat since FY 2003. This creates challenges across all the research areas the division supports.  

While NSF funds are not growing fast enough, the AAAS analysis shows that the fate of other agencies is even more worrisome. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget has fallen for the first time in 36 years, dropping by 0.1% to $28.6 billion. The Department of Energy Office of Science R&D portfolio has fallen 0.4%, and the Department of Defense's (DOD) basic research funding has gone down 2.9%. Whereas the total R&D budget for 2006 is increasing by 1.7% to about $135 billion, 97% of that increase is going to the DOD weapons development and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's human space flight programs.  

Even if the government spends more money on basic research, the rate of inflation makes the finances insufficient, according to Dill. "In a nushell, the U.S. R&D budget is simply considerably too small for a high-tech country in a high-tech world," he says.   

This in turn influences the kind of research that the science agencies support. "In times of tight budgets there can be a tendency toward conservatism in the proposals and reviews that the division of chemistry receives," Ellis says. In other words, lower risk research could get preference over fundamental research.  

In comparison, in the late 40s just after World War II, the government strongly supported fundamental science research without regard to immediate outcomes. "Many of the most important discoveries through which physics has really impacted biology, like X-ray crystallography, mass spectroscopy, NMR spectroscopy... happened long before there was any clear implication for biology," Dill says.  

But these days federal science agencies more readily fund grant proposals based on predictability and preliminary results; in Dill's words, "the impact they will have in the next 3 years as opposed to 30 years." The NIH, for example, funds grants for basic physics research on NMR or X-ray crystallography that will impact biology. If one wants to invent the next big thing after X-ray crystallography or a new way to do NMR spectroscopy, however, he says it is harder to find funding.   

If this trend continues, it might severely impair the U.S.'s capability to innovate and compete with other technologically advanced countries in the long term. Government support for basic R&D in the past few decades has paid off in terms of innovations such as lasers, computers and the internet. "But if we rest on our laurels we risk the prospect of not being competitive anymore," Dill says, "and once you lose your position it is hard to get back." 

Most of the 2.2 billion dollars increase in the 2006 federal research and development budget will go toward defense weapons development and human space exploration technologies, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Prachi Patel-Predd

Articles

2006 Salary Survey: Salary Changes and Job Satisfaction in the Spectroscopy Community

End of the Spectrum: The Changing Trend in U.S. Research Funding