Eleventh Triennial Toxicology Salary Survey

Abstract

This is the eleventh in a series of salary surveys for toxicologists conducted at three-year intervals that began in 1988. Previous salary surveys were conducted in 1988, 1991, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007 (which was posted electronically, but not published), 2012, 2016 and 2020. In addition to presenting the 2022 results, herein we are providing additional data and an analysis of the trends for employment and pay in toxicology over the last 35 years. The eleventh Triennial Toxicology Salary Survey was conducted as a joint project by the American College of Toxicology (ACT) and the Society of Toxicology (SOT). 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. Surveys were not distributed to regional SOT chapters, causing there to be minimal responses below the doctorate and master's degree levels. 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.

Keywords

salary toxicologist compensation statistics 30-year salary trends certification current unemployment rates

This is the eleventh in a series of salary surveys conducted at three-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 2016⁸ and 2020.⁹ In addition to presenting the 2022 results, herein we are providing additional data and an analysis of the trends for employment and pay in toxicology over the last 35 years.

The eleventh Triennial Toxicology Salary Survey was conducted as a joint project by the American College of Toxicology (ACT) and the Society of Toxicology (SOT). In addition to the 2 parent organizations, 8 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. Surveys were not distributed to regional SOT chapters.

Survey instruments were distributed electronically, with responses going to Survey Monkey. A total of 980 responses were received, down from the 1338 responses received for the previous survey.⁹ Figure 1 provides a summary of the number of doctoral respondents across the thirty-three years of surveys.

Figure 1.

Number of doctoral-level respondents across surveys.

The demographics of responses are summarized in Tables 1. A through 1. G and include respondents’ gender, age, degree, years of experience, certifications held, and areas of specialization. The survey instrument was similar to the form of the 2020 survey, developed in conjunction with the SOT Career Resource and Development (CRAD) services, which included questions evaluating periods of unemployment. 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, On an upnote, the disparity of income between genders continues to shrink in all experience levels as is reflected particularly in Tables 2 and 3. In addition, about 62% of respondents received additional professional income outside their primary employer, as shown in Table 4. The survey methodology employed conformed to standard procedures,¹⁰ though the response rate for this survey remains high for such endeavors, though lower than preceding years.

Table 1.

A. Distribution of Respondents by Gender.

Sex	Frequency	Percent
Male	502	51.2
Female	478	48.8
Table 1. B. Distribution of Respondents by Age.
Age	Frequency	Percent
<30	19	1.9
30–39	186	19.0
40–49	293	29.9
50–59	252	25.7
60–69	186	19.0
>70	44	4.5
Table 1. C. Highest Degree Obtained.
Degree	Frequency	Percent
Bachelors	33	3.4
Masters	88	9.0
Doctoral	859	87.7
Table 1. D. Years Since Completion of Highest Degree.
Years	Frequency	Percent
No response	4	0.4
0–1	5	0.5
1–3	29	3.0
3–5	48	4.9
5–9	109	11.1
9–19	302	30.8
19–29	265	27.0
29–39	164	16.7
>39	54	5.5
Table 1. E. Field of Highest Degree.
Field	Frequency	Percent
No response	5	0.5
Anatomy and Pathology	86	8.8
Biochemistry	84	8.6
Biology	56	5.7
Chemistry	14	1.4
Drug Discovery, Safety Pharmacology and Physiology	11	1.1
Eco/Environmental	15	1.5
General Toxicology	218	22.2
Genotoxicity, Mutagenesis, and Carcinogenicity	28	2.9
Hepatotoxicity	16	1.6
Immunotoxicity, Microbiology	32	3.3
Inhalation and Respiratory	20	2.0
Metabolism/Toxicokinetics	11	1.1
Neuro/Behavioral Toxicity	32	3.3
Pharmacology	89	9.1
Reproductive, Developmental and Endocrine Disruptors	43	4.4
Risk Assessment	16	1.6
Other	204	20.8
Table 1. F. Years of Direct Experience in Toxicology.
Field	Frequency	Percent
No Response	10	1.0
0–1	10	1.0
1–3	61	6.2
3–5	47	4.8
5–9	112	11.4
9–19	309	31.5
19–29	237	24.2
29–39	141	14.4
>39	53	5.4
Table 1. G. Certifications Held.
Certifications	Frequency	Percent
None	405	41.3
ATS	46	4.7
DABT	387	39.5
DACVP	104	10.6
DSP	14	1.4
DSP	46	4.7
ERT	69	7.0
FIATP	13	1.3
RAC	11	1.1
Other	72	7.3

Table 2.

Primary Job Base Salary*.

Salary in USD ($)	Frequency	Percent
No Response	24	2.4
< 19,999	7	0.7
20,000–29,999	4	0.4
30,000–$39,999	6	0.6
40,000–49,999	4	0.4
50,000–59,999	19	1.9
60,000–69,999	14	1.4
70,000–79,999	25	2.6
80,000–89,999	37	3.8
90,000–99,999	44	4.5
100,000–109,999	64	6.5
110,000–119,999	50	5.1
120,000–149,999	169	17.2
150,000–199,999	236	24.1
200,000–$249,999	143	14.6
>250,000	134	13.7

*Excludes fees, overtime, bonuses, commission and secondary employment.

Table 3.

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

Received	Frequency	Percent
No Response	46	4.7
Yes	614	62.7
No	320	32.7

Table 4.

Additional Professional Income Outside Primary Employer.

Salary in USD ($)	Frequency	Percent
No Response	46	4.7
None	733	74.8
<499	45	4.6
500–4,999	72	7.3
5,000–9,999	22	2.2
10,000–14,999	20	2.0
15,000–19,999	9	0.9
>20,000	33	3.4

Salary estimates for purposes of calculation were taken to be the midpoint of the range by each cohort, e.g. for the salary range of $90,000-$99,999, a mean value of $95,000 was used in all calculations. In addition, there was 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 breakdowns.

• Twelve (12) respondents indicated a salary >$250,000 without writing in the actual amount in the area provided. The salary used for calculation was $250,000. This probably led to a bias towards lower average values.

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

A total of 859 of the respondents (438 men; 421 women) were full-time employed holders of doctoral degrees in the United States. Table 5 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 5.

US Doctoral Annual Salaries.

		Years experience post-terminal degree
Employer	Sex	0–1	1–3	3–5	5–9	9–19	19–29	29–39	>39
Academic	F	—	135 ± NC (1)	70 ± 47 (4)	90 ± 23 (8)	100 ± 70 (24)	147 ± 70 (16)	143 ± 66(11)	—
Academic	M	—	—	95 ± NC (1)	95 ± 48 (4)	130 ± 73 (15)	146 ± 73(15)	154 ± 53(14)	197 ± 70 (12)
Business development/sales	F	—	—	—	—	175 ± NC (1)	—	—	—
Business development/sales	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Consulting (with a firm)	F	—	90 ± 7 (2)	112 ± 6 (3)	111 ± 23 (5)	153 ± 45(14)	156 ± 38 (7)	198 ± 43 (6)	—
Consulting (with a firm)	M	105 ± NC (1)	100 ± 7 (2)	135 ± NC (1)	—	182 ± 56 (5)	241 ± 134 (6)	250 ± 106 (2)	285 ± NC (1)
Consulting (independent)	F	—	—	—	—	307 ± 154(3)	231 ± 122(5)	293 ± 134(6)	—
Consulting (independent)	M	—	—	—	—	140 ± 120(2)	284 ± 122(6)	401 ± 368 (17)	394 ± 316 (8)
Contract laboratory	F	—	175 ± NC (1)	102 ± 42 (3)	151 ± 36 (5)	155 ± 48 (18)	190 ± 86 (8)	268 ± 187 (2)	—
Contract laboratory	M	95± NC (1)	95 ± 36 (3)	175 ± NC (1)	133 ± 54 (5)	169 ± 80 (8)	193 ± 52(11)	248 ± 32 (2)	168 ± 117 (2)
Federal government (including military)	F	—	92 ± 23 (3)	120 ± 21 (2)	103 ± 20 (5)	127 ± 20 (13)	144 ± 30 (11)	165 ± 33 (7)	—
Federal government (including military)	M	—	75± NC (1)	95± 14 (2)	121 ± 40 (5)	133 ± 49 (14)	152 ± 23 (15)	173 ± 21 (14)	175 ± 0 (3)
State or local government	F	—	—	—	100 ± 21 (2)	113 ± 26 (9)	95 ± 0 (2)	110 ± 7 (2)	—
State or local government	M	—	65± NC (1)	95± NC (1)	65 ± NC (1)	90 ± 7 (2)	—	145 ± 42 (2)	—
Industry	F	175 ± NC (1)	200 ± 35 (2)	130 ± 27 (12)	143 ± 51 (32)	188 ± 58 (62)	230 ± 43 (41)	215 ± 57 (13)	—
Industry	M	175 ± NC (1)	97.5 ± 13 (4)	136 ± 45 (7)	153 ± 46 (19)	190 ± 58 (67)	209 ± 56 (74)	231 ± 78 (33)	249 ± 34 (2)
Nonprofit research institution	F	—	—	—	—	115 ± 43 (4)	200 ± 35 (2)	225 ± NC (1)	—
Nonprofit research institution	M	—	—	—	—	—	225 ± NC (1)	—	292 ± 61 (3)
Other	F	—	—	—	120 ± 21 (2)	135 ± 0 (2)	—	—	—
Other	M	—	—	—	55 ± NC (1)	—	—	225 ± NC (1)	—

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.

The mean salaries (± 1 SD) for the 136 master’s level respondents from the U.S. are presented in Table 6. Likewise, the results from the 60 bachelor’s level respondents are presented in Table 7. The remaining respondents were not employed full-time during the reporting period and are characterized as follows:

Graduate and Postdoctoral students (10)

Working part-time (42)

Retired (41)

Other (9)

Table 6.

US Masters Annual Salaries.

		Years experience post-terminal degree
Employer	Sex	0–1	1–3	3–5	5–9	9–19	19–29	29–39	>39
Academic	F	—	—	—	—	105 ± NC (1)	—	—	—
Academic	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Business Development or sales	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Business Development or sales	M	—	—	—	—	135 ± NC (1)	—	—	—
Consulting (with a firm)	F	—	68 ± 6 (3)	—	75 ± NC (1)	125 ± 14 (2)	105 ± 42 (2)	—	—
Consulting (with a firm)	M	—	105 ± NC (1)	—	—	105 ± NC (1)	115 ± 0 (2)	85 ± NC (1)	175 ± NC (1)
Consulting (independent)	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Consulting (independent)	M	—	—	—	—	125 ± 71 (2)	—	175 ± NC (1)	135 ± NC (1)
Contract laboratory	F	—	—	85 ± NC (1)	238 ± 88 (2)	—	135 ± NC (1)	175 ± NC (1)	—
Contract laboratory	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Federal government (including military)	F	—	45 ± NC (1)	—	—	100 ± 49 (2)	—	—	—
Federal government (including military)	M	—	—	—	95 ± NC (1)	—	125 ± 14 (2)	125 ± 14 (2)	—
State or local government	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
State or local government	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	95 ± NC (1)	—
Industry	F	65 ± NC (1)	—	95 ± NC (1)	135 ± 0 (2)	141 ± 93 (8)	131 ± 36 (5)	135 ± NC (1)	—
Industry	M	—	135 ± NC (1)	—	90 ± 5 (2)	122 ± 54 (13)	177 ± 59 (3)	160 ± 36 (6)	—
Nonprofit research institution	F	—	75 ± NC (1)	—	—	—	115 ± NC (1)	—	—
Nonprofit research institution	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Other	F	—	75 ± 10 (3)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Other	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

NC = not calculable. All numbers are mean ± standard deviation (no. of respondents); values in 1000’s of US dollars.

Table 7.

US Bachelors Annual Salaries.

		Years experience post-terminal degree
Employer	Sex	0–1	1–3	3–5	5–9	9–19	19–29	29–39	>39
Academic	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Academic	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Business Development or sales	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Business Development or sales	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Consulting (with a firm)	F	—	—	—	—	100 ± 13 (4)	115 ± 28 (2)	135 ± NC (1)	—
Consulting (with a firm)	M	—	55 ± NC (1)	—	—	105 ± NC (1)	—	225 ± NC (1)	—
Consulting (independent)	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	175 ± NC (1)	—
Consulting (independent)	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Contract laboratory	F	—	—	—	—	85 ± NC (1)	—	135 ± NC (1)	—
Contract laboratory	M	—	—	—	—	—	173 ±110 (2)	—	105 ± NC (1)
Federal government (including military)	F	—	—	—	—	95 ± NC (1)	—	—	—
Federal government (including military)	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
State or local government	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
State or local government	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Industry	F	—	—	—	35 ± NC (1)	—	133 ± 37 (4)	135 ± 35 (3)	175 ± NC (1)
Industry	M	—	—	—	—	142 ± 31 (3)	140 ± 49 (2)	—	—
Nonprofit research institution	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Nonprofit research institution	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Other	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Other	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 and probably reflects those who received the survey rather than actual employed individuals.

Table 8 presents a summary of data on those 608 (48% of all employed) doctoral recipients who received bonuses in addition to salary. Table 9 presents summaries of the geographic distributions of the survey respondents by country. Table 10 summarizes the major professional society memberships of the respondents. Many respondents belong to more than one society. Table 11 provides a summary of the influence of certification on doctoral level salaries.

Table 8.

US Doctoral Bonus Amounts.

		Years experience post-terminal degree
Employment Category	Sex	0–1	1–3	3–5	5–9	9–19	19–29	29–39	>39
Academic	F	—	15 ± NC (1)	8 ± 4 (2)	—	8 ± 12 (4)	11 ± 13 (2)	25 ± NC (1)	—
Academic	M	—	—	—	5 ± NC (1)	14 ± 16 (2)	43 ± 25 (2)	15 ± NC (1)	—
Development or sales	F	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Development or sales	M	—	—	—	—	—	4 ± NC (1)	—	—
Consulting (with a firm)	F	—	—	12 ± 0 (2)	15 ± 11 (4)	21 ± 17 (10)	25 ± 44 (6)	28 ± 23 (2)	—
Consulting (with a firm)	M	15 ± NC (1)	11 ± 6 (2)	—	—	87 ± 142 (4)	76 ± 87 (4)	25 ± NC (1)	45 ± NC (1)
Consulting (independent)	F	—	—	—	—	554 ± NC (1)	120 ± NC (1)	15 ± NC (1)	—
Consulting (independent)	M	—	—	—	—	—	40 ± 0 (2)	265 ± 332 (2)	—
Contract laboratory	F	—	35 ± 17 (1)	13 ± 45 (2)	35 ± 33 (2)	21 ± 15 (15)	17 ± 16 (7)	1 ± NC (1)	—
Contract laboratory	M	—	—	—	7 ± NC (1)	31 ± 23 (5)	36 ± 21 (10)	78 ± 4 (2)	25 ± NC (1)
Federal government (including military)	F	—	—	7 ± 5 (2)	12 ± NC (1)	8 ± 6 (7)	4 ± 1 (2)	3 ± 1 (2)	—
Federal government (including military)	M	—	—	2 ± NC (1)	2 ± 0 (2)	2 ± 0 (2)	3 ± 1 (7)	3 ± 1 (6)	3 ± NC (1)
State or local government	F	—	—	—	—	9 ± NC (1)	—	—	—
State or local government	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Industry	F	—	41 ± 31 (2)	25 ± 15 (11)	44 ± 67 (22)	57 ± 49 (52)	71 ± 86 (36)	109 ± 163 (12)	160 ± NC (1)
Industry	M	19 ± NC (1)	7 ± NC (1)	15 ± 6 (4)	33 ± 36 (16)	55 ± 60 (60)	105 ± 133 (68)	67 ± 55 (29)	154 ± 207 (2)
Nonprofit research institution	F	—	—	—	—	33 ± NC (1)	40 ± NC (1)	—	—
Nonprofit research institution	M	—	—	—	—	—	20 ± NC (1)	—	34 ± 12 (2)
Other	F	—	—	—	23 ± NC (1)	—	24 ± NC (1)	—	—
Other	M	—	—	—	1 ± NC (1)	—	—	—	—

NC = not calculable. All numbers are mean ± standard deviation (no. of respondents); values in 1000’s of US dollars.

Table 9.

Distribution of Respondents by Country.

Country	Frequency	Percent
Argentina	1	0.09
Australia	4	0.37
Austria	1	0.09
Belgium	6	0.55
Brazil	1	0.09
Cameroon	1	0.09
Canada	40	3.68
China	4	0.37
Cuba	1	0.09
Cyprus	1	0.09
Denmark	3	0.28
Ecuador	1	0.09
France	5	0.46
Germany	9	0.83
India	4	0.37
Italy	3	0.28
Japan	7	0.64
S. Korea	3	0.28
Mexico	3	0.28
Netherlands	6	0.55
New Zealand	1	0.09
Norway	2	0.18
Panama	1	0.09
Portugal	1	0.09
Singapore	1	0.09
Slovakia	1	0.09
Spain	1	0.09
Switzerland	15	1.38
Taiwan	2	0.18
Turkey	1	0.09
United Kingdom	18	1.66
United States of America	854	78.56
No Response	85	7.82

Table 10.

2021 Society Membership of Respondents.

Society	Doctoral	Masters	Bachelors
AACR*	27	1	0
ACS	29	2	2
ACT	270	18	14
ASPE	29	0	0
BDRP	38	3	1
EMS	14	0	1
ISSX	16	0	0
RTC	38	1	0
SPS	40	3	2
SRA	26	5	1
SOT (National)	746	77	27
SOT (Canada)	15	1	2
SOT (Regional but not National)	3	0	0
SETAC	45	7	2
STP	144	7	1
Toxicology Forum	30	0	0
Other	115	12	3

^*Abbreviations: 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 11.

Board Certification and Doctoral Salaries.

		Years experience post-terminal degree
Certification status	Sex	0–1	1–3	3–5	5–9	9–19	19–29	29–39	>39
Certified	F	175 ± NC(1)	178 ± 37 (4)	104 ± 36 (7)	145 ± 51 (28)	177 ± 68 (95)	207 ± 73 (61)	206 ± 89 (38)	45 ± 43 (3)
Certified	M	175± NC (1)	—	133 ± 43 (5)	148 ± 51 (21)	187 ± 64 (73)	213 ± 76 (89)	251 ± 205 (58)	279± 226 (25)
Not Certified	F	—	91 ± 17 (5)	117 ± 36 (17)	114 ± 35 (29)	124 ± 47 (58)	150 ± 57 (51)	147 ± 67 (15)	460 ± NC (1)
Not Certified	M	105 ± NC (1)	92 ± 15 (9)	96 ± 43 (13)	110 ± 41 (11)	141 ± 44 (40)	198 ± 72 (44)	191 ± 68 (32)	202 ± 77 (18)

NC = not calculable. All numbers are mean ± standard deviation (no. of respondents); values in 1000’s of US dollars.

Table 12 presents a summary of base salaries for doctoral degrees. Table 13 provides an overview of employment with the 2 largest categories, industry and academia, broken down in Tables 14 and 15, respectively. Doctoral level salaries for industrial and academic subcategories are reported in Table 16. Table 17 summarizes academic employee status. Table 18 presents an overview of the number of years respondents have worked for their current employer. Finally, Table 19 summarizes employer-provided benefits, including health insurance and retirement plans. Table 20 summarized annual insurance premiums (USD) paid by employers. Table 21 summarizes longevity of employments by current employers. Table 22 presents periods of reported unemployment. Table 23 summarizes healthcare and retirement frequencies of employers.

Table 12.

US Doctoral Degree Primary Job Base Salary.

Salary in USD ($)	Male (%tot)n = 440	Female (%tot)n = 402	Total (%tot)n = 842
<19,999	3 (0.68)	4 (1.00)	7 (0.83)
20,000–29,999	2 (0.45)	2 (0.50)	4 (0.48)
30,000–39,999	3 (0.68)	1 (0.25)	4 (0.48)
40,000–49,999	0 (0.00)	2 (0.50)	2 (0.24)
50,000–59,999	7 (1.59)	10(2.49)	17 (2.02)
60,000–69,999	4 (0.91)	5 (1.24)	9 (1.07)
70,000–79,999	6 (1.36)	12 (2.99)	18 (2.14)
80,000–89,999	14 (3.18)	14 (3.48)	28 (3.33)
90,000–99,999	12 (2.73)	25 (6.22)	37 (4.39)
100,000–109,999	23 (5.23)	30 (7.46)	53 (6.29)
110,000–119,999	18 (4.09)	21 (5.22)	39 (4.63)
120,000–149,999	58 (13.18)	78 (19.40)	136 (16.15)
150,000–199,999	121(27.50)	98 (24.38)	219 (26.01)
200,000–249,999	83 (18.86)	56 (13.93)	139 (16.51)
>250,000	86 (19.55)	44 (10.95)	130 (15.44)

Table 13.

Description of Employment.

Employer	Frequency	Percent
Academic	145	14.26
Business development and/or sales of equipment or services	3	0.29
Consulting - as an Employee of a consulting firm	91	8.95
Consulting - Independent	75	7.37
Contract laboratory	80	7.87
Government - federal (inc. military)	117	11.50
Government - state or local	24	2.36
Industry	454	44.64
Nonprofit research institution	16	1.57
Other	12	1.18

Table 14.

Industry Employment Breakdown.

Employer	Frequency	Percent
Pharmaceutical	290	63.88
Chemical	57	12.56
Consumer Product	34	7.49
Food/Food Ingredients	19	4.19
Petroleum	5	1.10
Medical Devices	29	6.39
Other	20	4.41

Table 15.

Academic Employment Breakdown.

Employer	Frequency	Percent
Private doctoral-granting institution/medical center	24	16.55
Private master's granting university	1	0.69
Private primarily undergraduate institution	4	2.76
Public doctoral-granting institution/medical center	104	71.72
Public master's granting university	4	2.76
Public primarily undergraduate institution	7	4.83
Other	1	0.69

Table 16.

Industry Salaries for Doctoral Respondents.

		Years experience post-terminal degree
Employer	Sex	0-1	1-3	3-5	5-9	9-19	19-29	29-39	>39
Pharmaceutical	F	175 ± NC (1)	200 ± 35 (2)	130 ± 28 (11)	143 ± 22 (32)	188 ± 58 (62)	218 ± 43 (42)	215 ± 57 (13)	460 ± NC (1)
Pharmaceutical	M	175 ± NC (1)	98 ± 13 (4)	136 ± 45 (7)	153 ± 45 (21)	191 ± 57 (68)	229 ± 56 (75)	220 ± 80 (34)	399 ± 261 (3)
Chemical	F	—	—	—	125 ± 27 (6)	175 ± NC (1)	188 ± 25 (4)	135 ± NC (2)	—
Chemical	M	—	95 ± NC (1)	—	120 ± 17 (4)	165 ± 46 (14)	189 ± 24 (7)	178 ± 37 (4)	700 ± NC (1)
Consumer product	F	—	—	95 ± NC (1)	105 ± 19 (5)	168 ± 66 (4)	172 ± 55 (3)	—	—
Consumer product	M	—	115 ± NC (1)	105 ± NC (1)	120 ± 21 (2)	148 ± 24 (8)	225 ± NC (1)	208 ± 103 (2)	249 ± 34 (2)
Food/ Food ingredients	F	—	—	135 ± NC (1)	175 ± NC (1)	135 ± 0 (4)	225 ± NC (1)	—	—
Food/ Food ingredients	M	—	95 ± NC (1)	—	120 ± 21 (2)	162 ± 23 (3)	213 ± 66 (3)	225 ± NC (1)	—
Petroleum	F	—	—	—	95 ± NC (1)	—	135 ± NC (1)	—	—
Petroleum	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	213 ± 53 (2)	—
Medical Devices	F	—	—	—	120 ± 21 (2)	164 ± 20 (7)	175 ± NC (1)	—	—
Medical Devices	M	—	85 ± NC (1)	175 ± NC (1)	—	225 ± 27 (1)	196 ± 27 (7)	—	—
Other	F	—	—	95 ± NC (1)	105 ± NC (1)	161 ± 75 (5)	175 ± NC (1)	—	460 ± NC (1)
Other	M	175 ± NC (1)	—	—	152 ± 40 (3)	98 ± 110 (2)	—	130 ± 64 (2)	—

NC = not calculable. All numbers are mean ± standard deviation (no. of respondents); values in 1000’s of US dollars.

Table 17.

Academic Status.

Status	Frequency	Percent
Full Professor	74	51.03
Associate Professor	31	21.38
Assistant Professor	27	18.62
Research Scientist/Associate	9	6.21
Other	4	2.76

Table 18.

Years Worked for Current Employer.

Years	Frequency	Percent
0-1	96	9.67
1-3	202	20.34
3-5	133	13.39
5-9	149	15.01
9-19	246	24.77
19-29	111	11.18
>29	56	5.64

Table 19.

Employer-Provided Benefits.

Benefit	Doctoral		Masters		Bachelors		Total
Benefit	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent
Health insurance	768	92	73	91	32	94	873	92
Vision insurance	699	85	66	84	26	79	791	85
Dental insurance	713	87	69	87	30	88	812	87
Retirement plan*	760	91	74	93	31	91	865	91

*At least partially funded by employer.

Table 20.

Insurance Premiums Paid by Employees.

Health Insurance	3954 ± 4060 (651)
Vision Insurance	193 ± 355 (597)
Dental Insurance	461 ± 710 (612)

Numbers are mean ± standard deviation (no. of respondents); values in US dollars per year.

Table 21.

Years Worked for Current Employer.

Years	Frequency	Percent
0-1	97	7.74
1-3	243	19.38
3-5	158	12.60
5-9	239	19.06
9-19	348	27.75
19-29	107	8.53
>29	62	4.94

Table 22.

2017 Unemployment.

Interval Unemployed in 2017	Doctoral	Masters	Bachelors
<3 months	3	2	0
3 to 6 months	5	0	1
>6 to 9 months	2	1	0
>9 months	1	0	0

Table 23.

Employer-Provided Benefits.

Benefit	Doctoral		Masters		Bachelors		Total
Benefit	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent
Health Insurance	960	91.60	115	92.00	56	94.92	1131	91.80
Retirement Plan*	957	91.32	117	91.41	55	91.67	1129	91.34

At least partially funded by employer.

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. Secondly, 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 2021, with most unemployment lasting 6 months or less. Most employers (over 91%) provided health insurance and retirement plans for employees.

Finally, the lag between survey responses being provided by the main participant organization, the availability of data for analysis, and the publication of this data were excessive. Furthermore, the inclusion of those who were not holders of doctorates was insufficient. 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.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Gad, S. and Sullivan Jr., D. contributed to conception and design, contributed to analysis and interpretation, drafted manuscript, critically revised manuscript, gave final approval, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Shayne C. Gad

References

Gad

. The First International Salary Survey for Toxicologists. J Am Coll Toxicol. 1989;8(5):1053-1070.

Gad

. 1991 Toxicology Salary Survey Results. J Am Coll Toxicol. 1992;11(3):369-378.

Gad

. Third triennial toxicology salary survey. J Am Coll Toxicol. 1996;15(1):83-89.

Gad

. Fourth triennial toxicology salary survey. Int J Toxicol. 1999;18(3):219-225.

Gad

. Fifth triennial toxicology salary survey. Int J Toxicol. 2002;21(4):323-328.

Gad

. Sixth triennial toxicology salary survey. Int J Toxicol. 2005;24(6):473-479.

Gad

Sullivan

DW.

Jr . Eighth triennial toxicology salary survey. Int J Toxicol. 2013;32(1):11-22.

Gad

Sullivan

DW,

Jr . Ninth triennial toxicology salary survey. Int J Toxicol. 2016;35(2):243-251.

Sullivan

DW,

Jr Gad

. Tenth triennial toxicology salary survey. Int J Toxicol. 2020;39:189-197.

10.

Rossi

Wright

Anderson

. Handbook of Survey Research. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1983.