AI in Science: Early Insights Thanks: This paper introduces a new Google and Google DeepMind research effort, tracking AI use and (economic) impact in science. This first snapshot is the result of a collaboration between Google ATLAS, Google DeepMind and MIT FutureTech. We are thankful for help, feedback and/or support from Lizzie Dorfman, Alex Goldin, Conor Griffin, Alon Halevy, Demis Hassabis, Steph Hughes-Fitt, Andrew Kim, Pushmeet Kohli, Shane Legg, Anu Madgavkar, Mike Pisa, Priya Ramu, Philippa Rock, Vivek Sampathkumar, Alison Snyder, Leanne Trujillo.

To build the basis of a comprehensive evaluation of AI in science, we combine three complementary data sources and two taxonomies: (i) a large-scale corpus of Gemini interaction logs classified into scientific use cases, (ii) an extensive inventory of specialized AI for science models, (iii) a primary survey of researchers, (iv) a new taxonomy of scientific tasks developed by MIT FutureTech, and (v) publication and citation records from OpenAlex.

In order to measure “science” we have to define it. Throughout this paper, we adopt an intentionally broad definition of science. First, we include academic, industry, non-profit and government roles. Our data spans many fields including computer science, electrical engineering, molecular biology, animal science and zoology, sociology, and psychology: all are applied, computational, or theoretical. Second, we are informed by internationally recognized definitions of science (UK Research and Innovation, 2025; UK Science Council, 2026; OECD Frascati, 2015) and define science as any pursuit within these roles likely to generate new knowledge and understanding through investigation, computation, experimentation, or theoretical work. This is in line with the UK Science Council definition of a scientist (UK Science Council, 2026): “a scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.”

To process, structure, and categorize the large-scale text, our pipeline relies on OCTO. This was previously used in Iscenko et al. (2026), and is described in more detail there. At a basic level, OCTO integrates vector embeddings, clustering algorithms, and frontier Gemini LLMs to map unstructured text into structured representations at scale. OCTO serves as the method that classifies both logs and publication (abstracts) from our specialized AI model inventory against both the tasks and scientific fields hierarchies in a reproducible manner.

We start by analyzing the Google ATLAS 1.0 sample (Iscenko et al., 2026), containing 15 million anonymized user interaction logs across the conversational (Gemini App, and Google AI Mode) and Gemini API. We filter this focusing on work interactions for six major SOC categories where research activities concentrate (see sub-section 2.2.1 and Appendix 1 for additional information).

Our first descriptive finding is that the SOC codes that are likely to contain scientific interactions are significantly over-represented in the ATLAS sample compared to the general workforce. We measure this through an occupational over-representation ratio, calculated as an occupational group’s U.S. share of total Gemini conversation volume divided by its baseline share of U.S. employment, calculated based on Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) data (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025). Across all six research-intensive occupational families combined, Gemini interaction volume was about 1.8 times higher than their share of the U.S. labor force. The concentration is most pronounced in the core scientific occupations (SOC 19-Life, Physical, and Social Science), where LLM usage is about 2.7 times higher than their employment baseline.⁷⁷ 7 The core STEM detailed occupations within SOC 15, 17, and 19, had an over-representation ratio that was even higher, at 5.8x. These numbers are even higher in core STEM fields.⁸⁸ 8 These findings are in line with equivalent data from Anthropic’s Economic Index (Appel et al., 2025), where Life, Physical, and Social Science (SOC 19), as measured in June 2026 were also heavily over-represented (an over-representation ratio of about 4.5x in the US, and relatively close to the ATLAS v1.0 (Iscenko et al., 2026) LLM interaction shares globally).

Since existing taxonomies are not geared towards identifying scientific work or workflows and we also do not know the identity or employer of our users, we implement on top of this filtering, the science classifier described in section 2.2.1 with the goal of capturing a broad set of scientific or research activities (including academia, industry, government) which, based on the context and content of the interactions, are likely to represent scientific activities.

From the initial sample of 15 million Gemini interactions, about 360,000 were classified as science LLM interactions. This is the sample we will focus on for the remainder of this section. We present more information about this sample in Appendix 1.

We find the proportion of science LLM interactions varies across occupational groups, ranging from 4.5% in General Management (SOC 11) to 66.5% in Life, Physical, and Social Science occupations (SOC 19). If we compare the science LLM interactions with the average work conversation, they are on average about +7% more multimodal, about +19% higher in token usage, about +11% higher in number of turns, and measure +26% higher domain expertise score (which measures in a categorical variable language sophistication and apparent domain knowledge; more details in Iscenko et al. (2026)).⁹⁹ 9 This is based only on conversational surfaces (Gemini App and AI Mode) for which this data is universally available in order to be able to make these comparisons. This suggests that these science interactions—perhaps in line with other frontier cognitive tasks—are more likely to be sophisticated compared to other Gemini work usage.

We now proceed to discuss variation across fields. We first map interaction clusters into the scientific disciplines of interest that are common and well-represented in the OpenAlex and MIT FutureTech Scientific Task Taxonomy using the OCTO classification algorithm. To carry out this work, we enrich the OpenAlex field descriptions with keywords and types of papers within each cluster, as well as contrastive language. For the MIT FutureTech Science Task Taxonomy we leverage the hierarchy and representative tasks by making use of analogous and distinct examples to delineate subfields.¹⁰¹⁰ 10 We acknowledge some limitations of this approach in section 6, primarily that in the absence of knowing the user’s identity prompts lacking specific context may be mapped to methodological fields (e.g., Computer Science or Mathematics) rather than the researcher’s true field.

Using the Iscenko et al. (2026) strict privacy-preserving thresholds, we observe LLM usage in 195 of the 217 most granular scientific subfields.¹¹¹¹ 11 The privacy-preserving multi-user threshold was set at 25 distinct users. This means that for the remaining 22 subfields, we can not distinguish if/what usage occurred. This seems to suggest that AI adoption spans most scientific disciplines. Figure 1 shows the breakdown by core scientific fields and domains. In Panel A, we show that science LLM interactions are led by Physical Sciences (including Computer Science), which account for more than half (55.3%) of the scientific interactions. Social Sciences are the second-largest domain at 21.4%, followed by Health Sciences, at 14.1% and Life Sciences at 9.2%. At the field level (Panel B), we show that Computer Science tasks lead all fields, accounting for nearly three out of every ten science LLM interactions, with Engineering (also a physical science), second at 14.1%.¹²¹² 12 It is perhaps unsurprising that these fields come on top, as previous research tracing LLM-writing found both relative and absolute high adoption, particularly in Computer Science and related areas (Liang et al., 2024; Liang et al., 2025; Yu et al., 2026). Nonetheless, science-LLM interactions, as observed by our classifier, extend beyond the physical sciences. General Social Sciences (which includes Political Science, Sociology & Anthropology) have around 12% of interactions, ahead of Medicine, Agricultural & Biological Sciences, and Arts & Humanities. The remaining interactions span fields such as Materials Science, Chemistry, Mathematics, but also Economics & Finance, Psychology, and Archaeology. At the bottom, we observe less usage in fields such as Dentistry and Veterinary Science.

This descriptive field breakdown does not take into account the number of potential researchers or how active these scientific fields are. One possible adjustment is to account for the number of unique researchers having at least one publication in OpenAlex in these fields. Here we acknowledge at least three limitations: a) this benchmark is only valid for scientists who publish their work, therefore underestimating the number of authors in fields with, for example, more industry employment and b) this benchmark does not account for differences in publication frequencies between fields, c) OpenAlex has several issues regarding mapping of scientific works (as will be discussed later in the scientometrics section).

After normalizing usage by OpenAlex unique authors, we observe that a 1 percentage point increase in 2022 researcher share of a scientific field in OpenAlex data is correlated with an approximately 0.7pp increase in the share of the field in science-related Gemini interactions. Researcher shares explain just below 30% of the variance in science Gemini interactions shares, reflecting that while the underlying number of researchers explains some field level variation, most AI usage is driven by other factors, likely including AI fit to particular tasks and researcher AI-openness. Physical Sciences and Social Sciences are generally over-represented in scientific Gemini interactions relative to their share of all science researchers¹³¹³ 13 Computer Science sees more than 4x usage in science LLM interactions relative to its 2022 researcher count, leading field over-representation rankings., whereas Life Sciences and Health Sciences are under-represented.¹⁴¹⁴ 14 Note that we only know the absolute numbers of requests, rather than having measures of interactions that are equivalent total labor hours. We also do not see task completion or saved time.

Having now split the usage by field, we can look at heterogeneity along the intensive margin (i.e. unrelated to changes in the quantity of research) of usage as well (Figure 2). As expected, we find that physical sciences, life sciences, and health sciences tend to have higher multimodal average use than the average work interaction, while social sciences and computer sciences have comparatively lower shares (Panel A). Using the domain expertise score, as implemented in Iscenko et al. (2026),¹⁵¹⁵ 15 This is not to be mistaken with the task expertise score developed based on Autor and Thompson (2025), which we plan to work with in the next iterations of this program. we find that science Gemini interactions have higher expertise scores than average (Panel B) across all fields. Here, we take expertise to reflect user’s prompt writing sophistication and domain impacts of AI in terminology fluency.

If we aggregate the number of unique OpenAlex authors in 2022 at the country/region level, we find that science LLM usage scales proportionally with the size of the science workforce. On average, a 1 percentage point increase in a country’s/region’s share of researchers is associated with an almost 0.9 percentage point increase in its share of science LLM interactions. Relatedly, in Figure 3, we show some per-capita heterogeneity. This simple regression explains about three quarters of the cross-country variance in science LLM interactions. Major hubs, like the US, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Singapore and Netherlands have high adoption. Conversely, countries/regions with smaller science workforce, including those in Africa, Central and South Asia, show lower science AI interactions.

Mapping LLM interactions to the MIT Scientific Task Taxonomy, we find that LLMs are used across the entire science workflow. ‘‘Analyze and model quantitative research data’’ has the largest individual share (about 42% of science interactions), containing both code and theoretical work. This is especially high for Gemini used via the API. The second largest set of interactions, about 14%, are under ‘‘Communicating research findings and stakeholder information’’. We note that we think that this is likely a lower bound, as such queries may have been more likely to be filtered out by the custom science classifier or the work-in-progress task mapping.¹⁶¹⁶ 16 First, based on the data from the synthetic validation, our pipeline tends to over-predict writing tasks as “analyze and model quantitative research data” when these also include attachments or data mentioned. Second, routine writing (especially not related to work e.g. in personal emails), tone polishing, proofreading prompts may be more likely to be filtered out as generic text editing or misclassified in the wrong SOC, especially when they are short/without context. We plan to iterate on further improving this pipeline in the next iteration of this project.

Beyond communication and working with data, scientists also use Gemini as cognitive partners in physical tasks, teaching, and operations. Tasks in the “Develop products, prototypes, and process technologies” have 11.4% of usage. “Conduct experimental and sample processing operations” have 9.8% of usage. Scientists use AI for teaching and training (about 6.4%), managing research projects (just below 4%), and even to conceptualize research and manage and coordinate clinical studies.

Lastly, we find that science LLM usage is heterogeneous across disciplines (some evidence in Table 1). Interactions about clinical studies are nearly 5 times more likely to appear as a share of activity in Health Science relative to baseline. Ensuring quality, compliance and regulatory documentation, as well as research proposal design are also significantly over-represented task types. In Life Sciences, experimental and sample processing tasks are over 3 times as prevalent. Social scientists use Gemini disproportionately for collecting research data (often using multimodal capabilities), teaching and training, as well as project management. Computer Science has a higher share of usage in troubleshooting software and for quantitative data analysis (coding), whereas Physical Sciences (excluding Computer Science) has relatively more usage for prototype and process technologies, as well as data analysis. We note that these metrics do not adjust for baseline workload shares across domains, so these figures may reflect workflow differences rather than differential task-level adoption propensities. Nonetheless, this provides some additional insight into how scientists use Gemini.

We also analyze specialized AI model use in science. To do this, we have compiled and analyzed a set of 2,690 unique models that were published after 2012 and linked to a code repository suggesting that they could be used by the scientific community.¹⁷¹⁷ 17 Depending on the model this might include details on model implementation and training, access to model weights and code to reproduce the publication where the model was introduced. We note that the size of this dataset is comparable to Trišović et al. (2025), also based on Epoch AI data. This inventory, which is similar to work on foundational models by Trišović et al. (2025), was built through an agentic web search over public code repositories and scientometric databases, and augmented with the Epoch AI Models dataset (Epoch AI, 2026). We specifically include a broad set of both domain-specific AI models (e.g. protein structure predictions, genomic models, neural climate models, etc.) and deep learning models (e.g. neural networks, diffusion models, vision transformers) that could help scientific discovery, while excluding general statistical ML (e.g., regularized regression, random forests, etc.) and general software/ML frameworks (e.g., PyTorch, TensorFlow). See Appendix 2 for additional details.

The models in the inventory cover all 26 scientific fields in the OpenAlex taxonomy and 83% of the subfields. Figure 5 shows the percentage of models in each OpenAlex domain (panel A) and field, focusing on the top 10 fields (panel B). Although Physical Sciences / Computer Science dominate the inventory (as was the case in LLM use), Life and Health Sciences domains and fields within them account for more activity here – almost 36% of all models vs. 23% in the LLM use data. Just above 10% of the specialized models belong to Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, a field that was not present in the top 10 fields in the LLM use data, and where it has been argued that AI has particularly large potential (Topol, 2025; Kohli, 2026).

We used OCTO to extract 4,475 tasks that specialized models help scientists perform based on their publication abstracts. These tasks are formatted using the same structure as the MIT FutureTech Scientific Task Taxonomy (verb / object / context). In total, specialized models are associated with over 200 unique “actions”, highlighting the diversity of areas where AI can contribute to the research process.

Figure 6 displays the top 10 action verbs associated with all models (top bar) and those in the top 10 fields by activity. It shows that specialized models are primarily used for prediction, generation and classification. Field heterogeneity seems to reflect variation in the relevant use cases in different fields. For example, specialized models in Computer Science are often used to generate text or images and video, while models in Medicine provide segmentation and classification capabilities for imaging data. Solving (mathematical proofs and theorems) is more important in Mathematics, and Analysis in the Social Sciences.

We then map the scientific tasks extracted from model abstracts to the MIT FutureTech Scientific Task Taxonomy with the goal of understanding what tasks and fields could benefit or be augmented with specialized model outputs and capabilities. When we look at the taxonomy as a whole, we find that 17.6% of its Level 3 tasks are covered by models in the inventory. When we exclude operational and teaching tasks unlikely to be mentioned in publication abstracts we are extracting model tasks from, the percentage rises to 24.3%.¹⁸¹⁸ 18 We define here, in this context, operational tasks to include MIT Level 1 task domains such as “Manage research projects and operational processes”, “Teach and train students and research staff”, and “Coordinate clinical study execution and participant operations.” This means that almost 1 in 4 substantive research tasks in the taxonomy are covered by AI capabilities in our inventory.¹⁹¹⁹ 19 Because specialized model capabilities are extracted from publication abstracts, they reflect the capabilities claimed by model authors rather than actual usage. Of course this measure of “coverage” does not capture AI effectiveness in supporting a task. This would require analyzing model performance compared to established methods, an important avenue for future research.

Figure 7 shows the percentage of extracted tasks mapped to taxonomy Level 1 Tasks. As it was the case with Gemini usage (Figure 4), “Analyze and model quantitative data” is the most common specialized model task. Looking at the more granular level into this category, one of the primary roles of specialized AI models appears to be the prediction and simulation of data (such as protein structures, genomic modalities and weather forecasts) that can be used in downstream analysis. In contrast to the Gemini log data, tasks related to research administration, operation and facilities or training are virtually absent from the specialized model inventory. We analyze this more formally in the next subsection.

When we consider the high-level task taxonomy, it looks like researchers tend to use specialized AI and general LLMs for similar task categories—the top usage category is data analysis and modeling for both. But if we zoom in on specific, detailed tasks, the picture changes completely. First, Gemini usage (as can be seen in Figure 4) includes tasks much more spread out across the entire scientific workflow: this includes writing, operations, and teaching. As we drill down into detailed tasks, the overlap between tasks covered by specialized models and Gemini becomes weaker. In practice, this means a scientist within the life sciences might use both specialized AIs and general LLMs under the broad umbrella of “Data Analysis” (Level-1). But at the more granular level (Level-3), some of the most over-represented fields in specialized models are “Recombinant protein & therapeutic engineering”, while for Gemini usage more common are tasks such as “Statistical analysis & hypothesis testing”.

In Figure 8 we compare the distribution of Emmens et al. (2026) level 3 tasks in the Gemini logs (blue) and specialized models (yellow) datasets. Points along each line indicate an individual Level 3 task’s share of total activity within that corpus, plotted on a logarithmic scale. Tasks are clustered circumferentially by Level 1 domain, oriented with specialized-model-dominant domains to the right and LLM-dominant domains to the left. Tasks with zero activity in both datasets are omitted, and Level 1 domains with less than 1% share in both sources are pooled into ‘‘Other Tasks’’. The non-overlapping contours of the radar plot show that specialized models and Gemini usage concentrate on different tasks of the scientific workflow. For example, specialized models (yellow) have a large spike within a concentrated cluster of quantitative data analysis tasks on the right. General LLMs (blue) form a perimeter across in different areas, which becomes more apparent in the ‘‘other’’ category that includes communication, teaching, and general operational support on the left.²⁰²⁰ 20 As an example, some of the most over-represented tasks for specialized models are in disease and clinical outcome prediction, molecular construct and reagent engineering, and computational molecular modeling. Conversely, LLMs predominantly absorb a relatively higher share of simple hypothesis and statistical analyses and software troubleshooting and engineering. This is of course, in addition to the writing, communication, and workflow-support tasks like drafting manuscripts, and synthesizing literature, that are generally over-represented in all domains in Gemini logs compared to specialized models that don’t generally help with such activities—as discussed in the main text.

The log-log elasticity relating specialized model shares to general LLM usage shares drops monotonically as we increase the level of task resolution. The log-log elasticity is just above 0.6 at the most aggregate level, drops to 0.5 at Level-2, and is 0.2 at Level-3 when we only include tasks with positive shares across both specialized models and Gemini logs. If we include all tasks that show positive shares in at least one of the Gemini or specialized models, the elasticity remains 0.6 at the most aggregate level, drops to just below 0.5 at Level-2 and turns slightly negative at Level-3.²¹²¹ 21 We caution that part of this decline is partially driven by attenuation bias: as granularity increases, classifier accuracy declines. While trying to adjust for this econometrically suggests that the elasticity remains lower even after accounting for attenuation, the nominal differences we present should be interpreted rather as upper bounds and in conjunction with the descriptive evidence in Figure 8. This suggests that rather than being substitutes, general LLMs and specialized AI models may operate more as complements: researchers can deploy general LLMs as multimodal tools, coding assistants, and synthesis tools, while relying on dedicated domain models for the complex domain-specific hypotheses, data generation and simulations.

The models in our inventory are highly cited, with more than 1.3 million total citations accrued since 2012, and almost half a million since 2020. This result is not driven by ‘‘super-star’’ models or different citation norms across disciplines---49% of the models in our inventory are in the top 1% normalized citations in their field, and 83% in the top 10%.²²²² 22 We note, however, that high citation counts could be partly built into our sampling frame: both our agentic search for notable tools and the Epoch AI database have either explicitly or implicitly a high impact or notability criteria in their sample. Rather than providing a definite quantification, we view these figures as qualitative evidence (or, even, a lower bound if there are more such models) of the significant reach and diffusion of specialized models across science.

We have collected 460,000 unique citations to these models since 2020 and explored knowledge flows from disciplines that develop AI models to disciplines that cite models (an imperfect proxy for use); through this, we want to understand whether models and their allied outputs and techniques are diffusing into their “home” domains and / or flowing into other areas of science.

We find that over a quarter of all citation links jump across scientific domain boundaries, suggesting a mix of within and between fields knowledge flows. Models developed in Health, Life and Social Sciences exhibit the strongest cross-domain knowledge flow—for example, almost half of citations to Health Sciences models come from Physical Sciences (dominated by Computer Science) and 10% from the Life Sciences. Models with applications in the Social Sciences have over seven in ten of their citations into the Physical Sciences. By contrast, Physical Sciences models are more insular, with 85% of citations from other Physical Sciences research. In Figure 9, we show some of these interdisciplinary citations flows across the most dominant fields.

There are several possible interpretations for disciplinary crossover: One could be reabsorption of domain-specific techniques into computer science; as an example, the case of the U-Net architecture (Ronneberger et al., 2015; Çiçek et al., 2016), which was originally designed for medical lesion segmentation but has since become popular across volumetric computer vision. In other cases, we might be capturing diffusion of knowledge between basic and applied fields, e.g. Life Sciences models such as AlphaFold, and health applications (Hill and Stein, 2026). We might also be capturing use of domain-specific data to benchmark architectures and techniques developed in Computer Science. Understanding the nature of spillovers and complementarities between specialized AI model development in different domains is an important question for further research.

We conclude by considering the geography of specialized AI model development and citations, based on the country/region of the last author of specialized model publications, and research articles citing AI models.²³²³ 23 The results are broadly similar when we assign papers to their lead author or to the majority country among a publication’s authors.

As Figure 10 shows, there is a strong concentration of specialized model development in the US, China, UK, EU Countries, Korea and Canada. In fact, the top 10 model developing countries/regions account for 84% of the models in our data - this is in line with the Gemini log analysis showing that countries/regions with larger scientific workforces participate in more scientific AI interactions. Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs) are scarcely represented in the inventory with the exception of China, raising concerns that LMICs lack capabilities and resources to develop AI for science models tailored to their unique context, opportunities, and challenges.

The picture changes when we consider the geography of countries/regions citing AI models, which we treat as a rough proxy for specialized model usage. When we do that, we find that China accounts for around 40% of citations of AI models and other LMICs such as India play a more active role in the data. This is also illustrated in the bivariate heatmap in Panel B of Figure 10, where a number of LMICs in Latin America, South-East Asia and Africa display a relatively low propensity to develop AI models but a higher propensity to cite them. One interpretation for this result worth exploring further is that while some LMICs might lack the resources to develop specialized models, they might still be able to use them in their research when these models are openly accessible.

Sections 3 and 4 show two parts of AI adoption in science based on the task and field distribution of the usage in general LLMs and specialized AI models. Yet in order to assess the broader economic and organizational impact of AI, we need more information beyond usage patterns.

To gather these data, we partnered with an independent third party to collect a survey of 637 active scientists across the United States and the United Kingdom, spanning all the scientific domains previously discussed (Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, Health Sciences and Social Sciences) and across the whole career ladder (including Principal Investigators, professors, lab directors, industry R&D managers, mid-level and junior research scientists). We used a four-level screening pipeline to isolate actual scientists (in accordance with the definitions in the other sections of the paper), but note that the sample may not be fully representative of the scientific population as a whole. Because global population-level administrative benchmarks across these diverse fields and ladders do not exist, we report unweighted results. More information can be found in Appendix 3.

We begin by examining if and how scientists interact with AI tools in their day-to-day work. In Figure 11 we plot the frequency of AI use in our sample. We explicitly try to cover a broad definition of AI: including chatbots and document integrated LLMs, specialized AI tools and coding agents. We find that almost 47% of the surveyed researchers use some form of AI daily, while another 31% use it weekly.²⁴²⁴ 24 While a lot of previous research primarily focused on LLMs (Naddaf, 2026; Liang et al., 2024, e.g.,), our questionnaire also includes specialized AI models. While we prompted scientists to think of specialized AI models as tools or portals where they can access for example domain-specific AI, such as AlphaFold, GNoME, or DeepVariant (Poplin et al., 2018), we cannot rule out that some may have also included other areas not covered by Section 4, for example, traditional ML (e.g., random forests/clustering), computational software, or domain-tuned LLM wrappers (e.g. AI literature search engines) in their self-reported usage. Surveyed researchers spend about 70% of their time using general LLMs, split across General-Purpose Chat & Document LLMs, which account for 41% of total AI working time and the rest in Coding Agents and AI Code Assistants (previously studied in work such as Lyttelton et al. (2026)). Specialized models account for around 30% of self-reported time spent using AI, in our sample.

We also asked scientists how they are spending their work time in an average week. Looking at their responses highlights one possible reason why we may not yet see the propagation of task-level AI productivity improvements to more macro impacts on discoveries. According to our survey, in a typical working week scientists invest just under a fifth of their time on data analysis and interpretation (about 7 hours per week)—the set of tasks most associated with AI use (as discussed in Section 3 and 4). Surveyed scientists spend a large chunk of weekly time on data collection and experimentation (just below 8 hours per week), followed by writing and dissemination (about 5 hours per week), methodology and design (about 5 hours per week) and knowledge acquisition (about 5 hours per week). The rest of the working week is spent in conceptualization, as well as operational tasks such as funding & administration (e.g. grants, management) that receive (together) about 9 hours in total.

AI tools are self-reported to generate substantial net time savings in our sample. Following the established methodology of measuring firm productivity impacts of AI (Yotzov et al., 2026), we find that just below three quarters of respondents report that AI saves them time on net in their working week, compared to only 6% reporting net time lost. The average scientist’s time savings are around 6.9 hours per week.

When asked how this saved time is reinvested, researchers report directing the dividend primarily into increasing overall research volume and output (just below 30%), conducting physical lab execution and data collection (about 21%), and tackling harder, more ambitious scientific problems (about 19%). An additional about 18% report improved work-life balance and fewer total working hours, while 12% spend the saved time on teaching, mentoring, and admin tasks.

Consistent with evidence on the firm side (Babina et al., 2024), over the past three years, about 84% of surveyed scientists report a net increase in own lab or professional outputs (Figure 12), which includes more papers, patents, discoveries, and completed projects, with just below 47% reporting a moderate or significant increase in outputs of 10% or more. Looking forward over the next three years, about 9 in 10 scientists expect output increases, with the share anticipating the highest level of increases (25% or more) moving from about 7% to about 18%.

As with other parts of the economy, the science production function can be characterized by bottlenecks at different stages of the research process. In our survey, we first asked researchers to identify their current primary rate-limiting bottleneck across seven research phases. Physical experimentation and data collection emerged as the largest bottleneck (24% overall, and 30% in Physical Sciences & Engineering), followed by data analysis and interpretation (about 21%), and writing and dissemination (about 14%). We then asked whether this bottleneck had shifted over the past two years. Our survey provides empirical evidence of a downstream shift. In Figure 13A we see that about 44% of respondents report that their primary bottleneck moved downstream to tasks such as physical wet-lab work or manuscript drafting, outnumbering those that say the past two years brought an upstream shift (about 14%) by more than 3 to 1. For 42% of respondents, the primary bottleneck remained in the same research phase.

One interesting potential effect of this downstream shift is that about 41% of scientists report that their backlog of untested hypotheses has increased, compared to about 25% who reported a decrease (Figure 13B). One potential explanation is that AI accelerates hypothesis generation and computational predictions far faster than physical facilities can execute experiments to validate them, or the speed at which they themselves can verify the output. Indeed, a parallel change in workflow and new tasks is that AI outputs may impose substantial auditing and validation overhead (Figure 13C), with around 46% of the surveyed scientists who saved time by using AI reporting that they spent more than 25% of this saved time auditing and verifying AI outputs. Interestingly, this verification tax is particularly high in the Life Sciences. All these outcomes are positively correlated with AI use.²⁵²⁵ 25 The downstream shift and untested hypothesis backlog growth are both statistically and economically very strongly correlated with AI use (in a series of linear probability models) on self-reported AI usage intensity, while the higher verification tax produces less robust, marginally statistically significant results, depending on specification.

Finally, we asked scientists their perceived impact of AI on dimensions other than the quantity of scientific work. Their responses are displayed in Figure 14. Looking at scientists’ perceptions of their field, about 68% report AI increased access to insights from other disciplines, perhaps indicative of AI’s ability to lower search costs across domains. Similarly, about 67% report an increase in the ambition of questions tackled due to AI, and about 65% report an increase in the breadth of their research agendas. At the same time, a significant number of surveyed scientists were concerned that AI is increasing the number of low quality papers (with 40% saying that their number increased vs. 35% who say these low-quality papers numbers decreased). Views on the effort to publish are also mixed: 45% report increased effort per paper with some concerns for higher reviewer standards and validation requirements, while 31% report decreased effort. Most concerning is that when evaluating their own work, a plurality of surveyed scientists said AI made them focus on incremental, safer questions, with 49% seeing an increase in these safer questions vs. 28% reporting an increase in higher risk work. Perhaps this is indicative of a “Streetlight Effect” (Nagaraj and Tranchero, 2023; Hoelzemann et al., 2024; Hao et al., 2026) where AI disproportionately lowers the cost of work in data-rich, tractable, benchmark-able problems while crowding out the exploration of the more unstructured, higher-risk questions where training data are scarce and (physical) validation is more costly.

Overall, this supports the idea that the impact of AI in science is not just about “more” output but also about “different” output: for example, we may expect to have both more interdisciplinary and ambitious outputs, but simultaneously we may also see lower quality or incremental papers as well. We plan to explore these questions further in follow-up work.

Several limitations in our data, measurement, and scope must be acknowledged. First, our log analysis (section 3) considered a sample of 15 million interactions drawn exclusively from Google’s ATLAS (Iscenko et al., 2026) dataset. Enterprise data was excluded from this investigation. Generalization should be done with caution as Gemini users may skew toward specific scientific disciplines or have distinct use patterns from other proprietary and open models. For example, scientists in more regulated areas like health sciences may be relatively more likely to use enterprise accounts or specialized solutions, which we cannot observe. It is also worth noting that our analysis excludes agentic AI tools like Antigravity where scientists can use Gemini and other LLMs to leverage specialized model capabilities (Applebaum et al., 2026, e.g.,)—incorporating agentic data into our analysis is an important next step for our research program.

Second, our specialized model inventory is an initial step towards capturing the wealth of domain-specific AI models in science, but at this point should not be considered representative. For example, we currently focus on notable models that are easier to detect through web searches, bibliometric platforms and coding repositories, but miss bespoke models designed during individual studies building on open source frameworks or fine-tuning open weight models, as well as commercial models. The specialized model inventory and the citation analysis building on it are also inherently lagging which means we are capturing a snapshot in a dynamic landscape. It could be that long-term citation patterns evolve differently as peer-review standards for AI-assisted papers change.

Our third data source---the scientist survey---could suffer from selection bias. In particular those scientists who are already enthusiastic about or frequently use AI might be more likely to respond to a survey about AI in science. This could potentially overestimate the real adoption rate and the average weekly time savings. Our sample size also limits our ability to explore disciplinary differences in key questions such as shifting bottlenecks in downstream validation (e.g., physical experimentation and clinical trials), which could vary by discipline.²⁶²⁶ 26 While chemistry and medicine could face large capital/temporal barriers in physical validation, disciplines like computer science or mathematics can validate hypotheses entirely in-silico (computationally). Our aggregate findings, as a result, may over-represent the physical bottlenecks of “wet” sciences compared to “dry” computational sciences.

We rely on MIT FutureTech’s Scientific Task Taxonomy to integrate our analysis of LLM interaction log and specialized model inventory data. Deriving a task taxonomy from job postings has limitations. Defining the line between science research and the broader STEM economy is challenging, and there will be some false negatives and positives in the science research job postings used (and hence extracted tasks). The taxonomy will continue to be improved as we fine-tune the ability to characterize the tasks performed across scientific subfields.

The mapping procedure we use to classify logs and tasks extracted from specialized models into the MIT FutureTech Scientific Task Taxonomy also has limitations. Our classifier currently has the inherent issues associated with trying to disambiguate what tasks are science (and all downstream field/task classifications) using LLMs, without knowing user identity. For example, we are explicitly trying to assign a “science” label (through the LLM making this classification) only when the content of the conversation seems to suggest it. As a result we may systematically omit implicit or loosely framed scientific work differentially across task types (e.g. context may be less prevalent when scheduling meetings, and more prevalent when doing data analysis for a paper).

Additionally, and leaving aside classification error emerging from the need to assign noisy descriptions of scientific activity ‘‘in the wild’’ to ambiguous and in some case overlapping labels in a large taxonomy, our classification procedure maps each log/model task to a single MIT task, ignoring the fact that, for example, some specialized tasks might be relevant for multiple downstream scientific activities, or multiple tasks might be performed in a single Gemini conversation. It might also be the case that scientists ‘‘find their own use’’ for open source models, leveraging them for tasks that the developers had not anticipated or mentioned in the model descriptions. We plan to address these limitations and improve our classification and filtering procedure in future work.²⁷²⁷ 27 Our reliance on abstracts to extract specialized model tasks is also likely to neglect a long tail of tasks involved in the design and implementation of scientific methodologies. Our decision to focus our specialized model analysis on the AI model capabilities being produced rather than the R&D activities to build those capabilities will under-represent back-end AI and ML development tasks that are becoming more important as AI is adopted across science. We will give these tasks more attention in future work.

We also note our paper captures a snapshot of AI adoption through the early and mid-period of 2026. This may matter for some of our findings. For example, we found a clear division of labor between LLMs and specialized models in this period. However, this may be subject to change. The emergence of new frontier LLMs (and specialized models) increasingly able to solve difficult problems in fields like mathematics, genomics or life sciences (Anthropic, 2026; Callaway, 2026; OpenAI, 2026; Romera-Paredes et al., 2023, e.g.,) creates uncertainty about the future evolution in the division of labor between different types of model. We plan to track this in future iterations of our work.

Finally, our results establish associations rather than causality. Future work is needed to isolate the causal impact of using AI tools on scientific productivity.

Notwithstanding these limitations, we believe that our findings provide an important early look into how AI is reshaping science. Rather than a simple story of labor substitution or runaway productivity gains from automated discovery, our evidence points to a more nuanced picture.

AI usage is widespread across scientific disciplines, so it is perhaps unsurprising that scientists appear more over-represented in terms of AI usage relative to other occupations. Of course, the diffusion of AI in science is closely related to other distributions (and capacity to make investments, e.g. Brynjolfsson et al. (2021)) in computational or intangible capital. Gemini usage scales roughly in proportion to national researcher populations and the creation of specialized AI models is mostly concentrated in a small group of developed economies. Cutting-edge scientific AI often requires complements like compute availability and domain specific human capital. This suggests a risk that without policy action under-resourced or developing regions could fall behind. The frontier of AI-augmented science might require investment to mitigate global disparities in research capacity.

In terms of task analyses, specialized AI models and Gemini usage appear similar. Both have the primary use category in quantitative modeling and data analysis. But when we dig into specific types of analysis, we start seeing evidence of model specialization and a division of labor within the scientific production function. Specialized models function as a kind of domain-specific capital—generating synthetic data, predicting molecular properties, and executing simulations—tasks that seem better served by a specialized model instead of a general LLM (at least for now). Meanwhile, general-purpose models absorb a wider range of tasks like writing code, synthesizing literature and operations. Similar to the way in which researchers specialize across disciplines or workflow components, AI tools may be specializing as well.

Where adopted, AI seems to deliver meaningful productivity dividends. Researchers report substantial net time savings that they recycle back into other projects. However, these changes enabled by AI in science will not only be on the extensive margin. About half of surveyed researchers report that AI directs them toward safer, incremental questions where clean data and benchmarks exist. Only 28 percent instead pursue riskier projects–despite evidence that most important scientific progress relies on high-risk exploration (Azoulay et al., 2011) and novel hypotheses (Uzzi et al., 2013). It remains to be seen whether AI models will lead researchers toward more incremental work, enable “moonshot” projects, or possibly both; future work should examine the relationship between AI usage and the risk profile of scientists. It might be that AI delivers a “Streetlight Effect” (Hoelzemann et al., 2024; Nagaraj and Tranchero, 2023) where the costs of executing incremental work drops relative to higher-risk projects. Incremental work made easy by AI could grow as a proportion of research output overall, at least in the short-run.²⁸²⁸ 28 This is not necessarily a negative outcome—for example, incremental “normal science” that enhances the understanding of disease mechanisms contributes to evidence on drug development (McNamee et al., 2017). On the other hand, scientists report that AI enables more interdisciplinary work, potentially acting as a translator helping researchers recombine ideas more effectively (Fang and Evans, 2026) and helping overcome the burden of knowledge (Jones, 2009).

Despite widespread task-level time savings, macro-level scientific discovery rates remain bound by workflow task dependencies. These hidden scientific “organizational” complementarities are similar to AI’s impact on work in a general sense (Demirer et al., 2026; Gans and Goldfarb, 2026; Kremer, 1993). For example, it may be that computational modeling and data analysis are accelerated by AI tooling or that specialized AI models provide more promising biological structures to test, but the residual tasks in the bundle of scientific work are harder to scale and absorb the time savings. This bundling and task interlock for scientific work means that broader productivity gains may require redrawing job boundaries, and for some types of work the task bundling is stronger than others (Garicano et al., 2026). Enhanced productivity in data analysis might, for example, push the queue of work into hard-to-automate, physical stages that become a bottleneck (Jones, 2025).

Furthermore, AI outputs are not necessarily “turn-key”. Almost 90 percent of researchers who report time savings spend a meaningful share of their saved time verifying AI outputs, and about 46 percent spend more than a quarter of their saved time doing so. As with software engineering, scientists who adopt AI tools may be pushed toward auditing, debugging, and quality screening. Especially in the case of scientific work, being correct is of paramount importance. Lowering the marginal cost of hypothesis generation, code generation, analysis, or testing will create a high complementary marginal value of verifying results (or, perhaps, human judgment e.g., Agrawal et al. (2019)). This high “verification tax” likely arises from the high value of reliable and correct output in science.

The division of labor we document also suggests what the scientist of the near future might look like. Today a researcher moves between tools by hand: a chatbot for code and drafting, AlphaFold or a materials model for prediction, a spreadsheet or a lab notebook in between. The next step may be an LLM that orchestrates the specialized models directly, planning the experiment, calling the right model for each step, checking outputs against each other, and returning a candidate answer for the scientist to judge. The human’s job shifts toward choosing the question, setting the standard of evidence, deciding what is worth the cost of a physical test. Our data say we are not there yet: verification still consumes a large share of the time AI saves and the backlog of untested hypotheses is growing. The hope, in the end, is larger than time savings. When AlphaGo (Silver et al., 2016) played its 37th move against Lee Sedol in 2016, it played a move that its own model estimated a human would make about one time in ten thousand, and it won. The promise of more advanced AI systems in science is that they will eventually make moves of that kind: discoveries beyond the limit of what human researchers would have tried on their own.

Our work here has provided some initial measurements of the adoption of AI tools in science, its potential impact and bottlenecks that could limit this impact. As these limitations arise, so do new opportunities for cross-disciplinary work and new directions of inquiry in computationally demanding domains. Scientific production shares many of the features of other kinds of production. The rapid integration and adoption of AI tools by scientists combined with the substantive importance of breakthrough discoveries makes this an ideal domain to understand opportunities posed by AI. By continuing this work over time, we can watch the experimenters experiment, learning from scientific successes and failures to unlock AI-driven productivity gains in scientific R&D and elsewhere in the economy.