The ABRF Survey Committee
Lisa Bibbs, Nancy Denslow, Charles Glabe, Kathryn Ivanetich, Clayton Naeve, Ronald Niece, and Michael Rohde
Abstract
North American biotechnology facility directors associated with the ABRF received questionnaires on their facility, salary, compensation, education, experience, specialization, career opportunities, and employees. Fifty-four percent (136/252) of facility directors and 187 additional facility staff responded. Seventy-four percent of the responding directors were from non -profit institutions (universities, research institutes, government laboratories), while 26% were from private commercial organizations. Seventy-six percent of facility directors held Ph.D. degrees, and 59% of staff held bachelor's degrees. Directors and staff members typically had 13 and 7 years experience, respectively. Tenure track appointments were held by 44% of the directors. Annual salary correlated with educational level. Employees in for-profit institutions received significantly higher compensation in several categories: holders of bachelor's or Ph.D. degrees, directors, and senior technicians. Employees of non-profit institutions were more likely to have a retirement plan, while employees of for-profit organizations were more likely to enjoy merit raises and participate in a 401k/403b plan. There was a preponderance of male directors and female junior technicians, but the sexes were equally represented as managers or senior technicians. Overall, male directors appeared to be paid significantly more than female directors, but the salary difference reflected the greater number of male directors in for-profit institutions.
Introduction
Goals of this ABRF survey included examining employment issues among the directors and staff of core facilities. This topic represents a significant departure from previous surveys, which focused on instrumentation, technical capabilities, and services offered by member laboratories (1-5). We know of no published information on compensation of biomolecular resource facility staff. The emphasis of this study reflects the growth of ABRF, the maturation of core facilities, and issues that affect career opportunities in core facilities. The information from this survey will be of interest to persons employed in this sector who want to compare their experience and opportunities for advancement within the industry. The results of the survey will be useful for managers and administrators to make informed decisions about recruitment and retention of skilled professionals in their core facilities. The data are reported without correction for regional differences in the cost of living; comparisons of the data in this manuscript to an individual's situation must consider local cost of living and unique characteristics of their community.
We obtained survey data from a total of 136 directors and 187 staff members of for-profit and non-profit biotechnology core facilities. Our analysis of the data focused on the effects of several factorssuch as degrees, experience, specialty, and type of facilityon the salaries of staff and directors. We also surveyed other aspects of compensation, such as the availability of benefits, including medical, dental, and retirement benefits. Compensation levels correlated with the levels of education and experience. A number of significant differences were noted in the compensation patterns between individuals employed in non-profit and for -profit institutions. There was a range from a mean annual salary of $75,000 for facility directors working in for-profit institutions to a mean of $22,000 for junior technicians working in non-profit institutions.
Experimental Procedures
In December 1993 the ABRF Survey Committee sent questionnaires to all 252 North American facility directors who were members of the ABRF. Responses received through March 1994 are reported here. Directors were asked to distribute survey questionnaires to their staff. The initial and two follow-up mailings and the processing and tabulation of anonymous responses were performed by the University of Wisconsin Survey Research Laboratory. The survey was composed of two sections. One portion concerned general data about the facility and was completed by the director. A second section contained questions about salary, compensation, education, and experience and was completed by both directors and staff. Of the 252 directors, 136 (54%) responded to the questionnaire. A total of 187 responses were obtained from staff members. Copies of the survey are available on request.
The data are reported as one or more of the following: mean, standard deviation (S.D.), range, and number of responses. For statistical analyses, the significance of the differences between means for two data sets was typically assessed by the Student's t test. Probability values of less than 0.05 were accepted as a statistically significant difference between the means. In order to assess whether the populations had normal distributions, we performed regression analyses on selected data sets, such as the directors' salaries in non-profit versus for-profit settings. The regressions assumed a normal distribution, which in theory has a skewness of zero and a kurtosis of 3. The data for facility directors had a skewness of -0.41 and a kurtosis of 2.54; these values are close to those for a normal distribution. In addition, regression analysis with Huber standard errors and Robust regression, both of which do not depend on a normal distribution, were run on selected data sets with results identical to those from the Student's t test.
Results and Discussion
Facilities represented in the survey population Of 133 director respondents who identified their facility type, 71% were from non-profit institutions, and 29% were from commercial institutions. For the purposes of this study, non-profit facilities include universities, research institutes, and government laboratories, while for-profit facilities include private industrial facilities and commercial services. Of the non-profit facilities, the majority (82%) were university-affiliated, 15% were affiliated with private research institutes, while only 3% were government facilities. Of the for-profit facilities, the vast majority (92%) provided services to in-house scientists, while only 8% of the commercial facilities responded whose major business interest was the services provided to customers. Three responding facilities did not identify their institution type.
Because all the facilities were classified as for-profit or non -profit, the data were examined to determine whether significant differences existed in the responses to questions on salary and benefits by facility type. Consequently, some compensation and benefits data are reported separately for these two categories.
The percentages of the responding facilities offering each of the following services were: protein sequencing (84%), amino acid analysis (74%), peptide synthesis (63%), DNA synthesis (50%), mass spectrometry (28%), DNA sequencing (27%), and RNA synthesis (21%). These results are similar to data reported in the most recent published survey on biotechnology facilities (1). The only major differences were the increases in the percentage of facilities offering mass spectrometry, DNA sequencing, and RNA synthesis. The percentage of facilities offering each of these services has approximately doubled since the last full ABRF survey (1). On average, facilities had 4 staff members, an annual operating expense of $279,000, and an annual income from users of $153,000.
Experience and training The survey results indicated that 76% of the facility directors hold Ph.D. degrees. The majority of core facility staff (59%) hold a bachelor's degree as their highest degree. Not surprisingly, directors had almost twice as much experience (average 13 years) as staff members (average 6.9 years). In addition to their position as director, 43.5% of the non -profit facility directors held a position of assistant, associate, or full professor.
Compensation Salaries of individuals responding to the survey were tabulated with respect to their degree level and their affiliation with for-profit or non-profit organizations, and the data are shown in Figure 1. Our data indicate a positive correlation between compensation and educational level in both sectors. Thus, in general, respondents with Ph.D.'s received higher wages than those with master's degrees, and these in turn were compensated better than respondents with bachelor's degrees. Scientists employed in the for-profit sector generally appeared to receive higher salaries than those in the non-profit sector. This difference was significant (P < 0.01) only for respondents with bachelor's and doctoral degrees, not for those with master's degrees. The mean salaries of individuals with bachelor's degrees employed in the for-profit sector was 28% higher than their counterparts in the non-profit sector with a mean of $37,000 in for-profit institutions and of $29,000 for non-profit institutions. The overall range of compensation for individuals with bachelor's degrees was from $13,000 to $67,000. Individuals with Ph.D.'s employed in the for-profit sector also enjoyed significantly higher mean salaries (35% higher) than those employed in the non-profit sector (means of $81,000 and $62,000, respectively). The salary range for Ph.D.'s was from $19,000 to $131,000. Respondents with master's degrees were compensated the same in for-profit and non-profit institutions (P > 0.05).
The salaries of individuals within the various categories of employment positions were compared between for-profit and non-profit institutions (Figure 2). Facility directors and senior technicians received significantly higher compensation in for -profit institutions, 21% and 53% respectively, than in non-profit institutions. The salaries for managers or junior technicians were not significantly different between for-profit and non-profit institutions. Interestingly, technical staff with Ph.D.'s received significantly less (mean $44,900) than directors holding the same degree (mean $70,800), presumably reflecting differences in experience and responsibility. The average wage for hourly employees was $10.31 per hour (S.D. = $4.11).
Figure 1: Annual salaries (mean ± S.D.) by degree and institution type.
Figure 2: Annual salaries (mean ± S.D.) by position and institution type.
In order to asses how an individual's level of appointment and primary technical specialization influenced the level of compensation, the survey asked respondents to identify their position and primary responsibilities. The potential levels of appointment were director, manager, senior technician, or junior technician; and the technical specialties included protein sequencing, peptide synthesis, mass spectrometry, DNA synthesis, amino acid analysis, DNA sequencing, and separation and/or analytical methods. Because the previous data indicated that differences in compensation existed between for-profit and non -profit institutions, the data from respondents from the different types of institutions were compared separately.
At the director level, there was no significant correlation between salary and specialty (data not shown). For individuals classified as managers and junior technicians, there was not a sufficient number of responses to draw statistically valid conclusions. However, in the category of senior technician, there were significant differences by specialty. Senior technicians specializing in amino acid analysis (annual salary of $35,000±12,000, n = 30), mass spectrometry (annual salary of $42,000±17,000, n = 16), or protein sequencing (annual salary of $36,000±10,000, n = 39) were paid significantly more than senior technicians specializing in DNA synthesis (annual salary of $28,000±7,000, n = 31) or DNA sequencing (annual salary of $27,000±8,000, n = 16). When senior technicians were separated by institution type, senior technicians specializing in protein sequencing, mass spectrometry, amino acid analysis, and separation and/or analytical methods received higher compensation at for-profit institutions than at non-profit institutions (Figure 3). While a number of respondents listed more than one specialty, the limited number of responses did not permit a statistical analysis of whether responsibility for more than one specialty might lead to higher compensation, as might be expected.
Salaries and positions were also examined as a function of gender. Approximately equal numbers of individuals by gender were found in the manager and senior technician categories, but approximately 2.5-fold more women than men were identified as junior technicians. For manager, senior technician, and junior technician positions, no significant differences in salary were found by gender. At the director level there were approximately three times as many men (n = 109) as women (n = 37). For those reporting salary data, in non-profit organizations there were 53 male directors versus 17 female directors, while in for-profit institutions, there were 26 male directors versus 2 female directors.
A significant difference in mean salary was observed by gender for facility directors ($68,800 for males versus $54,700 for females). This salary differential did not reflect differences in number of years of experience or in the level of education attained, but it did reflect a greater number of female directors in non-profit institutions than in for-profit institutions. For directors in non-profit institutions, there was no statistically significant differences in salaries for females ($56,200) and males ($61,600). No other statistically significant differences were found in the levels of compensation between male and female salaries with equivalent positions.
Figure 3: Annual salaries (mean ± S.D.) for senior technicians by specialty at for-profit and non-profit institutions. Abbreviations: SepAn, separation analysis; AAA, amino acid analysis; MS, mass spectrometry; PSQ, protein sequencing.
Figure 4: Benefits for annually salaried employees.
Promotion and Advancement The survey assessed the types of opportunities for advancement that institutions offered their employees. The results showed that 97% of the for-profit institutions reported merit raises, while only 74% of the non -profit institutions offered this benefit. Non-profit institutions, on the other hand, were more likely to give cost of living raises.
Benefits The types of benefits offered to facility employees by their institutions are displayed in Figure 4. Nearly all the yearly salaried respondents had access to medical, dental, and life insurance. Few respondents had access to legal insurance, profit sharing, or patent/award royalties. Non-profit institutions offered greater access to retirement benefits than did for-profit institutions. For-profit institutions offered greater access to profit sharing and 401k/403b plans. Tuition assistance was offered by 80% of for -profit institutions versus 62% of non-profit institutions. All other benefits were offered by similar percentages of non-profit versus for-profit institutions (i.e., differed by less than 10%).
Hourly Salaried Employees A small number of hourly-salaried personnel (n = 19) responded to the survey. Seventy-five percent of these employees had a bachelor's degree or higher, while 25% did not have a bachelor's degree (data not shown). Hourly wage employees covered all biotechnology specialties; however, most listed DNA synthesis as their primary responsibility, with DNA sequencing being the second most common area of responsibility. Protein sequencing, peptide synthesis, and amino acid analysis had the lowest number of hourly wage based employees. Approximately 50% had access to medical, dental, and life insurance, a retirement plan, and flexible hours, and received paid leave or vacation time averaging approximately 10-15 days per year.
Conclusions While it is tempting to compare our own situations to the results presented here, it is important to note that these results are based on a broad distribution of values reported in this survey. Since the survey was totally anonymous, the data have not been corrected for location, which has a significant bearing on the cost-of-living and employment compensation. For an indication of the cost-of-living index in a particular area, contact the local Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber uses the ACCRA Inter-City Cost-of-Living Indicator. The overall indicator takes into account the cost of housing, groceries, utilities, transportation, and health care, with the average city having an indicator of 100. For example, the city of San Diego, CA has an overall cost-of -living indicator of 130.9 whereas, Kansas City, KS has an overall indicator of 98.9 (ACCRA Index, August 1994).
In summary, this survey provided a snapshot of the current employment and compensation situation in the biotechnology facilities represented by ABRF membership. A typical core facility director held a Ph.D., was employed by a non-profit facility, and had an annual salary of $62,000. A typical manager or senior technician earned $35,000 or $28,000, respectively, while junior technicians earned $22,000. Benefits offered varied between for-profit and non-profit institutions.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank all the anonymous respondents who provided data for this survey. This work was supported by NSF grant DIR9003100 to John Crabb (W. Alton Jones Cell Science Center) on behalf of the ABRF.
References
1. Ivanetich, K.M., Niece, R.L., Rohde, M., Fowler, E., and Hayes, T.K. (1993) Biotechnology core facilities: trends and update. FASEB J. 7, 1109-1114
2. Niece, R.L., Beach, C.M., Cook, R.F., Hathaway, G.M. and Williams, K.R. (1991) State of the art biomolecular core facilities: a comprehensive survey. FASEB J. 5, 2756-2760.
3. Niece, R.L., Beach, C.M., Cook, R.F., Hathaway, G.M. and Williams, K.R. (1992) Erratum. FASEB J. 6, 792.
4. Williams, K.R., Niece, R.L., Atherton, D., Fowler, A.V., Kutny, R. and Smith, A.J. (1988) The size, operation, and technical capabilities of protein and nucleic acid core facilities. FASEB J. 2, 3124-3130.
5. Pon, R.T., Buck, G.A., Niece, R.L., Robertson, M, Smith, A.J. and Spicer, E. (1994) Nucleic acid services in core laboratories. Biotechniques 17, 526-535.
Address correspondence to Kathryn Ivanetich, Biomolecular Resource Center, University of California at San Francisco, Surge 104, 90 Medical Center Way, San Francisco, CA 94143 -0541, E-mail: kathyi@cgl.ucsf.edu.
Return to the The ABRF Home Page