|
|
|
Sixth Triennial Toxicology Salary Survey
Shayne
C. Gad
Gad Consulting Services, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.
The 2004 Triennial Toxicology Salary Survey was conducted as a joint project
by the American College of Toxicology and the Society of Toxicology.
In addition to the two parent organizations, 20 others (the Teratology
Society, the Association of Government Toxicologists, and 17 regional
chapters of the Society of Toxicology) supported the effort by providing
mailing labels for their membership.
A total of 5507 survey instruments
were mailed in November of 2004, with 214 of these eventually being returned
as undeliverable,
making the effective
mailing 5293. As of May 7, 2005, 1251 responses had been received, or a
response rate of 23.6%. This is comparable to the response rates for 1988
(Gad 1989), 1991 (Gad 1992), 1995 (Gad 1996), 1998 (Gad, 1999) and 2001
(Gad, 2002). The survey instrument was essentially the same as that used
in the previous (fifth) survey. 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, as is reflected
particularly in Tables 1 and 4. Survey methodology employed conformed to
standard procedures (Rossi, Wright, and Anderson 1983), though the response
rate for this survey remains high for such endeavors.
Salary estimates for purposes of calculation were taken to be the midpoint
of the range, e.g. the salary range of $90,000–$99,000 was estimated at
$95,000. In addition, there were a significant number of incomplete responses
that required further estimation. The incomplete responses and the methods
used to handle them were:
- Thirty (30) respondents did not indicate a gender. These results were
not included in the breakdowns.
- Seventy (70) respondents indicated a salary >$150,000 without writing
in the actual amount in the area provided. The salary used for calculation
was $165,000. This probably led to a bias towards lower average values.
- Ten (10) respondents indicated an additional professional income >$20,000
without writing in the actual amount. The amount used for calculation
was $25,000.
- Eleven (11) respondents indicated stock options as part or all of their
bonus without listing the value of such options. These options were not
counted towards the total bonus.
- Fifty-five (55) respondents indicated they received bonuses, commission,
stock options, or profit sharing without indicating the amount. The amount
estimated for this was $23,600, which was the mean value of the reported
or estimable responses in this category.
A total of 1000 of the respondents (699 men; 286 women; 15 no response)
were full-time employed holders of doctoral degrees in the U.S. and Canada.
Table 1 presents the mean salaries (± one standard deviation)
for these individuals, sorted by years of experience after receipt of
their
degrees, sex, and field of employment. Salaries are in thousands of U.S.
dollars per year.
The mean salaries (± 1 SD) for the 106 master's level respondents
are presented in Table 2. Likewise, the results from the 46 bachelor's
level respondents are presented in Table 3. The remaining respondents
were not employed full time during the reporting period and are characterized
as follows:
Graduate students 10
Working part-time 21
Unemployed 6
Retired 15
Post-Doctoral 36
Other 10
It should be noted that the response levels for these additional categories
are considerably lower than for the 2001 survey. For comparison, the
2001 numbers were:
Graduate students (not differentiated)
Working part-time 118
Unemployed 38
Retired 147
Post-Doctoral 74
Other (not differentiated)
There were no associates degree respondents.
Table 4 presents a summary of data on those 544 (54.4% of all
employed) doctoral recipients who received bonuses in addition
to salary. Table
5 presents a summary of the geographic distribution of the doctoral
level survey respondents. Table 6 summarizes the major professional
society
memberships
of the respondents. Many respondents belong to more than one society.
Table 7 summarizes, according to the National Research Council (NRC),
the numbers of individuals who have received their doctorates in toxicology
since 1983 (the first year that the degree was included in the NRC
annual summary) (National Research Council 1998). Also included is
a summary
of
the number of doctoral respondents by years post-degree.
Table 8 provides a summary analysis of the influence of geographic
location of place of employment on salaries for doctoral level employees.
Table
9 provides a summary of the influence of certification on doctoral
and master's level salaries. Finally, Table 10 presents an overview
of the
number of individuals who are self-employed, independent consultants.
It has been proposed that this survey be conducted by email in the
future. In the 2001 survey, respondents were asked if they had email
access for
such purposes. Of those employed full time that responded to the question,
over 92% (1405) of those with doctoral degrees, 87% (130) of those
with masters degrees, and 58% (73) of those with bachelors degrees
reported
having email access. However, as was widely noted, an email based system
would not provide anonymity.
Discussions and Conclusions
The 2004 survey results point to a number of different trends
that deserve attention and add some insights into the job market,
career path, and the conduct of future studies. First, although
the situation has clearly improved 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.
Finally, certification continues to play a significant positive
role in compensation.
TABLE 1
2004 Doctoral Level
Salaries
|
Employer
|
Sex
|
Years experience post-terminal
degree
|
|
0-1
|
1-3
|
3-5
|
5-10
|
10-20
|
20+
|
Contract Laboratory |
M
|
--- |
75 ± 0
(2) |
81 ± 12
(8) |
95
± 35 (10) |
117 ± 24
(18) |
141 ± 44 (37)
|
F |
38 ± 39
(2) |
78 ± 6
(3) |
90 ± 17
(4) |
75 ± 14
(4) |
119 ± 33
(6) |
121 ± 27
(8) |
| State
or Local Government |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
85 ± 14
(2)
|
103 ± 50
(7)
|
90 ± 23 (20)
|
| F |
45 ± NC
(1)
|
55 ± NC
(1)
|
---
|
65 ± 14
(4)
|
78 ± 8
(6)
|
83 ± 19
(5)
|
| Federal Goverment |
M
|
---
|
---
|
78 ± 10
(7)
|
78 ± 13
(4)
|
90 ± 12
(21)
|
115 ± 18 (43)
|
| F |
55 ± NC
(1)
|
68 ± 6
(3)
|
75 ± NC
(1)
|
87 ± 10
(9)
|
98 ± 18
(13)
|
116 ± 18
(12)
|
| Academic |
M
|
45 ± NC
(1)
|
55 ± NC
(1)
|
25 ± NC
(1)
|
70 ± 17
(14)
|
99 ± 37
(26)
|
125 ± 38 (94)
|
| F |
45 ± NC
(1)
|
53 ± 15
(4)
|
58 ± 15
(3)
|
63 ± 19
(17)
|
79 ± 15
(19)
|
108 ± 28
(16)
|
| Development or
Sales |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
105 ± NC
(1)
|
138 ± 46 (3)
|
| F |
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
105 ± NC
(1)
|
| Consulting (with
a firm) |
M
|
45 ± NC
(1)
|
---
|
65 ± NC
(1)
|
99 ± 23
(7)
|
157 ± 77
(9)
|
138 ± 67 (20)
|
| F |
75 ± NC
(1)
|
105 ± NC
(1)
|
88 ± 17
(4)
|
60 ± 7
(2)
|
95 ± 12
(5)
|
135 ± 42
(2)
|
| Consulting (independant) |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
208 ± 60
(2)
|
156 ± 89 (30)
|
| F |
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
130 ± 45
(5)
|
137 ± 28
(5)
|
| Pharmaceutical
Industry |
M
|
---
|
110 ± 35
(2)
|
98 ± 14
(15)
|
113 ± 17
(43)
|
145 ± 34
(72)
|
165 ± 38 (58)
|
| F |
108 ± 23
(3)
|
93 ± 8
(5)
|
86 ± 6
(8)
|
113 ± 17
(12)
|
142 ± 30
(33)
|
167 ± 38
(6)
|
| Chemical Industry |
M
|
75 ± NC
(1)
|
85 ± 14
(2)
|
78 ± 6
(3)
|
91 ± 17
(9)
|
116 ± 28
(12)
|
127 ± 23 (26)
|
| F |
---
|
75 ± NC
(1)
|
95 ± NC
(1)
|
95 ± 9
(8)
|
108 ± 20
(7)
|
123 ± 15
(4)
|
| Consumer Products |
M
|
---
|
85 ± NC
(1)
|
---
|
105 ± 15
(7)
|
137 ± 29
(14)
|
155 ± 31 (17)
|
| F |
---
|
85 ± NC
(1)
|
85 ± NC
(1)
|
110 ± 7
(2)
|
109 ± 13
(8)
|
90 ± 21
(2)
|
| Others |
M
|
65 ± NC
(1)
|
---
|
---
|
105 ± 24
(4)
|
141 ± 40
(8)
|
152 ± 108 (13)
|
| F |
35 ± NC
(1)
|
---
|
95 ± NC
(1)
|
75 ± NC
(1)
|
120 ± 17
(4)
|
136 ± 24
(8)
|
NC=Not
Calculable
All numbers are Mean ± 1 Standard Deviation (# of respondants) |
TABLE 2
2004 Master Level Salaries
|
Employer
|
Sex
|
Years experience post-terminal degree
|
|
0-1
|
1-3
|
3-5
|
5-10
|
10-20
|
20+
|
| Contract Laboratory |
M
|
---
|
75 ± NC
(1)
|
---
|
---
|
105 ± NC
(1)
|
88 ± 6 (3)
|
| F |
---
|
35 ± NC
(1)
|
135 ± NC
(1)
|
65 ± NC
(1)
|
55 ± NC
(1)
|
135 ± NC
(1)
|
| State or Local
Government |
M
|
---
|
25 ± NC
(1)
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
| F |
---
|
---
|
---
|
35 ± NC
(1)
|
---
|
---
|
| Federal Government |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
80 ± 7
(2)
|
100 ± 7 (2)
|
| F |
---
|
---
|
---
|
65 ± NC
(1)
|
105 ± NC
(1)
|
105 ± NC
(1)
|
| Academic |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
10 ± NC
(1)
|
---
|
---
|
| F |
---
|
35 ± NC
(1)
|
45 ± NC
(1)
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
| Development or
Sales |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
| F |
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
| Consulting (with
a firm) |
M
|
---
|
---
|
65 ± 14
(2)
|
75 ± 26
(3)
|
135 ± 0
(2)
|
90 ± 7 (2)
|
| F |
---
|
---
|
65 ± NC
(1)
|
105 ± NC
(1)
|
78 ± 23
(3)
|
---
|
| Consulting (independant) |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
85 ± NC (1)
|
| F |
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
98 ± 35
(3)
|
65 ± NC
(1)
|
| Pharmaceutical
Industry |
M
|
75 ± NC
(1)
|
65 ± 14
(2)
|
115 ± NC
(1)
|
105 ± 26
(3)
|
123 ± 36
(4)
|
129 ± 38 (5)
|
| F |
---
|
---
|
55 ± 0
(2)
|
88 ± 21
(3)
|
121 ± 19
(5)
|
110 ± 17
(4)
|
| Chemical Industry |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
77 ± 25
(5)
|
85 ± NC
(1)
|
118 ± 18 (7)
|
| F |
---
|
55 ± NC
(1)
|
---
|
75 ± NC
(1)
|
99 ± 34
(5)
|
105 ± NC
(1)
|
| Consumer Products |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
108 ± 25
(3)
|
120 ± 21 (2)
|
| F |
---
|
95 ± NC
(1)
|
---
|
---
|
80 ± 7
(2)
|
105 ± NC
(1)
|
| Other |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
55 ± NC
(1)
|
---
|
---
|
| F |
---
|
---
|
---
|
115 ± 35
(3)
|
55 ± 0
(2)
|
135 ± NC
(1)
|
NC=Not Calculable
All numbers are Mean ± 1 Standard Deviation (# of respondants) |
TABLE 3
2004 Bachelor Level Salaries
|
Employer
|
Sex
|
Years experience post-terminal
degree
|
|
0-1
|
1-3
|
3-5
|
5-10
|
10-20
|
20+
|
| Contract
Laboratory |
M
|
---
|
--- |
--- |
45 ± NC
(1) |
95 ± 57 (2)
|
79 ± 17
(5) |
F |
--- |
75 ± NC
(1) |
--- |
55 ± NC
(1) |
75 ± NC
(1) |
75 ± 0
(2) |
| State
or Local Government |
M
|
--- |
---
|
--- |
--- |
--- |
75 ± NC
(1) |
F |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
| Federal
Government |
M
|
--- |
---
|
--- |
--- |
--- |
115 ± NC
(1) |
F |
--- |
--- |
35 ± NC
(1) |
--- |
--- |
95 ± NC
(1) |
| Academic |
M
|
--- |
---
|
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
F |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
45 ± NC
(1) |
55 ± NC
(1) |
| Development or
Sales |
M
|
---
|
---
|
--- |
--- |
--- |
75 ± NC
(1) |
F |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
| Consulting (with
a firm) |
M
|
--- |
---
|
--- |
--- |
70 ± 49
(2) |
135 ± NC
(1) |
F |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
Consulting
(independant)
|
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
F |
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
| Pharmaceutical
Industry |
M
|
--- |
--- |
--- |
75± NC
(1) |
70 ± 7
(2) |
95 ± 14
(5) |
F |
--- |
--- |
--- |
75± NC
(1) |
75± NC
(1) |
118 ± 60
(2) |
| Chemical Industry |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
123 ± 33
(3)
|
F |
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
95 ± 14
(2) |
| Consumer Products |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
F
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
80 ± 7
(2)
|
---
|
| Other |
M |
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
100 ± 7
(2)
|
F |
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
NC=Not
Calculable
All numbers are Mean ± 1 Standard Deviation (# of respondants) |
TABLE 4
2004 Doctoral Level Bonuses
|
Employer |
Years experience post-terminal
degree |
|
Sex
|
0-1
|
1-3
|
3-5
|
5-10
|
10-20
|
20+
|
| Contract Laboratory |
M |
--- |
2 ± NC
(1) |
6± 3
(1) |
14 ± 14
(6) |
16± 16
(14) |
14 ± 27
(20) |
F |
--- |
3± NC
(1) |
12 ± 9
(4) |
24 ± NC
(1) |
21 ± 26
(1) |
5± 4
(4) |
| State or Local
Government |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
--- |
--- |
F |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
| Federal
Government |
M
|
---
|
---
|
2 ± 1 (2)
|
2 ± NC (1)
|
2 ± 2
(7) |
6 ± 8 (9)
|
F |
--- |
1± NC
(1) |
--- |
1 ± 1
(3) |
2± 2
(3) |
2 ± 1
(6) |
| Academic |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
10 ± NC (1)
|
11 ± 18
(6) |
21 ± 23
(14) |
F |
--- |
--- |
--- |
1 ± NC
(1) |
1 ± NC
(1) |
17 ± 10
(2) |
| Development or
Sales |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
F |
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
Consulting
(with
a firm) |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
14 ± 11 (5)
|
29 ± 26
(7) |
63 ± 109 (12)
|
F |
--- |
10 ± NC
(1) |
8 ± 4
(3) |
--- |
4± 3
(4) |
12 ± 16
(2) |
| Consulting (independant) |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
24 ± NC (1)
|
74 ± 85 (4)
|
F |
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
89 ± 72
(2) |
--- |
| Pharmaceutical
Industry |
M
|
--- |
22 ± 22
(2) |
12 ± 11 (1)
|
16 ± 13 (42)
|
31 ± 19
(68) |
48 ± 61
(53) |
F |
15± NC
(1) |
11 ± 8
(5) |
11 ± 9
(8) |
18± 10
(12) |
27 ± 22
(30) |
32 ± 26
(6) |
| Chemical
Industry |
M
|
24 ± NC
(1)
|
5± 3
(2)
|
5± 1 (2)
|
7± 5 (9)
|
15 ± 10
(11)
|
21 ± 13
(20)
|
F |
---
|
4 ± NC
(1)
|
4 ± NC
(1)
|
8 ± 8
(6)
|
16 ± 9
(6)
|
10 ± 5
(3)
|
| Consumer Products |
M
|
---
|
2 ± NC
(1)
|
---
|
25 ± 26 (7)
|
31 ± 21
(12)
|
42 ± 30
(15)
|
F
|
---
|
10 ± NC
(1)
|
4 ± NC
(1)
|
13 ± 16
(2)
|
14 ± 15
(6)
|
15 ± NC
(1)
|
| Other |
M
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
16 ± 10 (3)
|
25 ± 16
(6)
|
19 ± 16
(9)
|
F
|
---
|
---
|
24 ± NC
(1)
|
---
|
10 ± 6
(3)
|
113 ± 264
(8)
|
NC=Not Calculable
All numbers are Mean ± 1 Standard Deviation (# of respondants) |
TABLE 5
Geographic
Distribution of Employed Doctoral Respondents
|
State:
|
Number of Respondents:
|
State:
|
Number of Respondents:
|
| Alabama |
5 |
New Hampshire |
2 |
| Alaska |
5 |
New Jersey |
76 |
| Arkansas |
4 |
New Mexico |
9 |
| Arizona |
9 |
Nevada |
3 |
| California |
106 |
New York |
50 |
| Colorado |
10 |
North Carolina |
98 |
| Connecticut |
23 |
North Dakota |
1 |
| District
of Columbia |
29 |
Ohio |
51 |
| Delaware |
9 |
Oklahoma |
3 |
| Florida |
11 |
Oregon |
7 |
| Georgia |
13 |
Pennsylvania |
45 |
| Idaho |
1 |
Puerto Rico |
3 |
| Illinois |
28 |
Rhode Island |
1 |
| Indiana |
24 |
South Carolina |
2 |
| Iowa |
5 |
South Dakota |
0 |
| Kansas |
8 |
Tennessee |
9 |
| Kentucky |
5 |
Texas |
43 |
| Louisiana |
6 |
Utah |
1 |
| Maine |
2 |
Virginia |
28 |
| Maryland |
59 |
Washington |
22 |
| Massachusetts |
30 |
Wisconsin |
14 |
| Michigan |
42 |
West Virginia |
1 |
| Minnesota |
20 |
Wyoming |
1 |
| Missouri |
5 |
Armed Forces Europe |
1 |
| Mississippi |
7 |
Canada |
0 |
| Montana |
2 |
Other |
France (1); Netherlands
(2); UK (2) |
| Nebraska |
2 |
Not reported or
illegible |
49 |
TABLE 6
Society Affiliations of Doctoral
Respondents
Society: |
Number
Belonging: |
| SOT (Society of
Toxicology) |
1171 |
| ACT (American
College of Toxicology) |
306 |
| Teratology
Society |
81 |
| SETAC (Society
of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry) |
80 |
| SRA (Society for
Risk Assessment) |
57 |
| ACS (American
Chemical Society) |
53 |
| (EMS) Environmental Mutagen
Society |
43 |
| AACR (American Association
for Cancer Research) |
41 |
| ASPET (American Society for
Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics) |
40 |
| ISSX (International Society
for the Study of Xenobiotics) |
40 |
| STP (Society of Toxicologic
Pathology) |
30 |
| AAAS (American Association
for the Advancement of Science) |
29 |
| AIHA (American Industrian
Hygiene Association) |
20 |
| ISRTP (International Society
for Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology) |
16 |
| ABT (American Board of Toxicology) |
14 |
| SFN (Society for Neuroscience) |
13 |
| ACVP (American College of
Veterinary Pathologists) |
12 |
| DIA (Drug Information Association) |
11 |
| AAPS (Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons) |
10 |
| MASOT, AVMA, NBTS, SSR, ASBMB,
ASM, ATS, MARTA, ASCP, FASEB, ISEA, RAPS, STC, AACT, AAI,
AGT, APHA, SQA, AAR, AALAS, ACGIH, ASIP, NYAS, Sigma Xi,
SOFT, SPS, AAA, AACC, AAVCT, APS, ASCB, ASCB, ASTM, Endocrine
Society, Eurotox, GTA, SCHC, AAFS, AAI, ABFE, ABVT, ACOEM,
AFS, ASAS, ASCO, ASNS, BTS, ESA, IACT, IFT, ISEE, ISOT,
RSA, RTC, SER, SID, SLB, SOEH, AACAS, AACP, AADR, AAIH,
AALAC, AAMI, AAP, AAPCC, AAPSE, AASLD, AAVA, AAVCT, AAVT,
ABA, ABSA, ABUT, ACCP, ACGI, ACH, ACHMM, ACLAM, ACRP, ACTM,
ACUP, ACUT, ADSA, AGGIA, AGGIH, AGU, AHAS, AIT, ALAS, AOAC,
APA, ARVD, ARVO, ASA, ASAREA, ASBC, ASBMB, ASBMR, ASDM,
ASFS, ASHG, ASLO, ASN, ASN, ASP, ASR, ASRM, ASSE, AST,
ASTMH, ASTS, ASHG, ASLO, ASN, ASN, ASP, ASR, ASRM, ASRM,
ASSE, AST, ASTMH, ASTS, ASVCP, ATA, AVPT, AYMA, Biochemical
Society, BTA, BTS, CPDD, FST, GFTCH, HESI, HPS, IAQA, IBRO,
ISAC, ISACB, ISEH, ISHE, ISIAQ, ISSC, JPET, MAFS, MANY,
MATT, MSA, MTA, NAEM, NCAC-SOT, NEHA, Netherlands Society
of Toxicology, NSH, PANWAT, PNIRS, RASCC, RTP, SCI, SDB,
SEBM, SEGH, SFRBM, SGI, SoCRA, SON, SPE, SRNT, SSAR, SSPD,
STRP, TIR, WDA, Wildlife Society |
<10* |
Bold Societies were specifically
listed on the survey
*Remaining Societies are listed in
descending number of members, then alphabetically
|
TABLE 7
Recipients of Doctoral Degrees (and
Survey Respondents) in Toxicology by Year
| Year |
Graduates
|
Survey years post-degree/respondents
|
| 1981 |
|
20 + = 462 |
| 1982 |
|
|
| 1983 |
60
|
|
| 1984 |
97
|
|
| 1985 |
98
|
10-20
= 311 |
| 1986 |
104
|
|
| 1987 |
115
|
|
| 1988 |
111
|
|
| 1989 |
91
|
|
| 1990 |
86
|
|
| 1991 |
104
|
|
| 1992 |
99
|
|
| 1993 |
94
|
|
| 1994 |
87
|
|
| 1995 |
84
|
5-10 =168 |
| 1996 |
86
|
|
| 1997 |
82
|
|
| 1998 |
80
|
|
| 1999 |
80 |
|
| 2000 |
78 |
3-5
= 67 |
| 2001 |
? |
|
| 2002 |
? |
1-3
= 46 |
| 2003 |
? |
|
| 2004 |
? |
0-1
= 23 |
TABLE 8
Geographic Comparison: Doctoral
Salaries
| State |
Sex
|
Years experience post-terminal degree
|
|
0-1
|
1-3
|
3-5
|
5-10
|
10-20
|
20 +
|
| California (106) |
M
|
--- |
75 ± NC
(1) |
135 ± NC (1) |
120 ± 29
(11) |
133 ± 48
(20) |
122 ± 50
(27) |
|
F
|
35 ± NC
(1) |
83 ± 21
(4) |
95 ± 8 (8) |
111 ± 32
(9) |
114 ± 25
(14) |
140 ± 39
(9) |
| North
Carolina (98) |
M
|
--- |
55 ± NC
(1) |
95 ± NC (1) |
104 ± 14
(13) |
131 ± 55
(17) |
146 ± 77
(35) |
|
F
|
--- |
75 ± NC
(1) |
85 ± 14 (2) |
86 ± 13
(7) |
102 ± 19
(16) |
120 ± 18
(11) |
| New Jersey (76) |
M
|
75 ± NC
(1)
|
---
|
92 ± 6 (3) |
115 ± 22
(13)
|
141 ± 53
(17)
|
147 ± 52
(25)
|
|
F
|
---
|
70 ± 21
(2)
|
100 ± 21 (2) |
113 ± 17
(4)
|
125 ± 17
(13)
|
118 ± 15
(3)
|
| Maryland
(59) |
M
|
65 ± NC
(1)
|
65 ± NC
(1)
|
100 ± 7 (2) |
85 ± 17
(3)
|
105 ± 17
(11)
|
126 ± 24
(18)
|
|
F
|
95 ± NC
(1)
|
60 ± 7
(2)
|
85 ± 17 (3) |
95 ± 14
(4)
|
108 ± 21
(7)
|
136 ± 27
(4)
|
| New
York (50) |
M
|
---
|
88 ± 6
(3)
|
90 ± 7 (2) |
105 ± NC
(1)
|
113 ± 26
(6)
|
141 ± 25
(22)
|
|
F
|
95 ± NC
(1)
|
65 ± NC
(1)
|
90 ± 7 (2) |
95 ± NC
(1)
|
117 ± 46
(8)
|
135 ± 0
(2)
|
NC=Not Calculable
All numbers are Mean ± 1 Standard Deviation (# of respondants) |
TABLE 9
Board Certification and Doctoral Salaries
| Certification
Status |
Sex |
Years experience post-terminal degree |
|
0-1 |
1-3 |
3-5 |
5-10 |
10-20 |
20 + |
| Certified |
M |
55 ± NC
(1)
|
135 ± NC
(1)
|
83 ± 22 (15) |
107 ± 21
(56)
|
134 ± 38
(129)
|
140 ± 61
(241)
|
|
F |
135 ± NC
(1)
|
70 ± 7
(2)
|
92 ± 7 (15) |
97 ± 23
(9)
|
120 ± 31
(65)
|
129 ± 31
(49)
|
| North
Carolina (98) |
M |
67 ± 37
(5)
|
85 ± 32
(15)
|
83 ± 18 (27) |
100 ± 28
(54)
|
115 ± 45
(101)
|
128 ± 37
(137)
|
|
F |
65 ± 22
(9)
|
70 ± 17
(25)
|
82 ± 24 (21) |
85 ± 27
(37)
|
105 ± 36
(50)
|
110 ± 26
(21)
|
NC=Not Calculable
All numbers are Mean ± 1 Standard Deviation (# of respondants) |
TABLE 10
Self-Employed, Independant Consultants
|
Sex |
Years experience post-terminal degree |
|
0–1 |
1–3 |
3–5 |
5–10 |
10–20 |
20 + |
|
M
F |
0
|
0
|
1 |
1
|
3
|
11
|
0
|
0
|
0 |
0
|
0
|
0
|
References
AAPS. 2005. Salary Survey AAPS Newsmagazine 8 (1): 22–26.
Gad S. C. 1989. First international salary survey for toxicologist. J. Am Coll.
Toxicol. 8: 1053–1070.
Gad S. C. 1992. 1991 toxicology salary survey results. J. A. Coll. Toxicol.
11:369–378.
Gad S. C. 1996. Third triennial toxicology salary survey. J. Am Coll. Toxicol.
15: 83–89.
Gad S. C. 1999. Fourth triennial toxicology salary survey. Inter J. Toxicol
18: 219–224.
Gad S. C. 2002. Fifth triennial toxicology salary survey. Inter J. Toxicol
18: 219–224.
National Research Council. 1998. Doctorate recipients from United States universities:
Summary report. Washington, DC : National Research Council.
Rossi P. H., J. D. Wright, and A. B. Anderson. 1983. Handbook of Survey Research.
New York, NY: Academic Press.
|
|
