Biochemists and Biophysicists

Still, many tasks need human skill and judgment. Writing reports, giving recommendations, and teaching students rely on creativity and understanding. Only about 1% of recent science papers show any AI-written text ^[4], reflecting that biochemists mostly write their own reports.

Experts stress that AI should support scientists, not replace them – as one developer of AlphaFold notes, “bright scientists” are still needed to check and use AI predictions correctly ^{[1] [2]}. In short, AI is automating some routine lab work (like structure calculation and data analysis), but much of the job – especially interpreting results and teaching – remains in human hands.

However, some barriers slow adoption. University labs often rely on graduate students and postdocs (relatively low-cost labor), so there’s less immediate pressure to buy expensive automation ^[2]. Experimental research also changes quickly – what a lab studies now might be different next year – so fixed automated systems can become out-of-date ^[2].

Finally, people still expect scientists (not just AI) to make final decisions, especially in health-related work. Experts caution that AI must be supervised by humans ^[2]. Indeed, McKinsey notes that most AI biotech projects are still early-stage – only a small share have reached actual drug tests ^[5].

In all, AI is being tested in many biochemistry labs, but fully replacing human scientists is far off. Biochemists’ insight and creativity continue to be key.