For life sciences organizations, competition for science, technology, engineering, and math (aka STEM) talent has always been fierce. Scientific expertise commands a premium, and the field's demands leave little room for prolonged vacancies. What has changed in recent years, however, is the scale and scope of the challenge in securing and retaining these capabilities.

The need for data science and AI skills across all industries is intensifying talent scarcity and pushing pay well above traditional market medians. Employers are increasingly willing to stretch compensation structures to secure critical skills, but these decisions are creating ripple effects across internal equity, cost management, and long-term rewards strategy.

For HR and compensation leaders, it’s more important than ever to balance their responsiveness to aggressive market pressures with sustainable, defensible compensation frameworks.

Why STEM has become even scarcer

STEM roles have long been difficult to fill in life sciences, and this is impacting the market globally. While the US is falling behind in STEM development, 46% of businesses in the European Union cited a need for employees with STEM and digital skills. Specialized scientific training, regulatory complexity, and long development cycles naturally limit talent supply. However, the emergence of data science and AI and the demand across industries have further narrowed the talent pool.

Today, life sciences companies are no longer competing only with each other. Data scientists, AI specialists, and digitally fluent researchers are in demand across virtually every industry, from technology and financial services to manufacturing and retail. As a result, life sciences employers are being pulled into a broader, cross-industry labor market where pay benchmarks are often set outside traditional sector norms.

This cross-industry competition is redefining what ‘market’ means for many critical roles and driving salaries above market median levels, not as a strategic preference but as a necessity to attract scarce capabilities. In many cases, organizations feel they have little choice but to “pay whatever it takes,” especially when these roles are directly tied to pipeline acceleration, innovation, and competitive differentiation.

The 2025 US Mercer SIRS® Benchmark: Life Sciences survey provides several examples of this premium pay directed at STEM talent in the life sciences. The survey data confirms that:

• Data Science executive level roles showed a year-over-year base pay increase of a whopping 18.0%. At the senior manager level, we saw base salary increase of 9.1%. At the experienced professional level, base pay increased by 7.1%.
• Manufacturing Production Process Engineering roles, which design, develop, and implement new production processes for the efficient/economical mass production of goods, showed a year-over-year increase in base pay of 13.5% at the executive level and 14.3% at the senior director level.

For reference, the overall change from 2024 to 2025 in base pay was 4.6% for all positions in the survey.

Paying above market comes with trade-offs

While premium pay for STEM talent may solve short-term hiring problems, it introduces longer-term complexity.

When new hires enter at compensation levels significantly greater than those of existing employees, it can undermine perceptions of fairness. Employees may view these hires as leapfrogging established pay structures, even when premiums are technically defensible based on skills scarcity or external market data.

From a compensation standpoint, this creates several downstream effects:

• Increased pressure to make internal adjustments to preserve equity
• Rising fixed labor costs that may be difficult to unwind
• Heightened scrutiny around pay transparency and communication

Over time, these factors can strain both budgets and retention if not actively managed.

Precise communication and training is key

Paying above market for STEM roles does not inherently violate pay equity principles. Differences in compensation can be fully defensible when grounded in factors such as role scope, skills scarcity, tenure, or performance.

However, challenges arise when organizations fail to clearly articulate the rationale for differential pay structures for highly specialized roles, or when managers are not equipped to consistently explain those decisions. In an environment where life sciences employees are increasingly informed and attuned to compensation practices, unclear messaging can erode trust, even when programs are compliant.

This places greater importance on having a well-defined compensation strategy and ensuring that managers understand how to apply and communicate it.

Job architecture as a stabilizing force

In constantly evolving environments, job architecture provides a shared framework for defining roles, skills, and progression. When designed and maintained effectively, it allows compensation teams to:

• Identify which roles and skills truly warrant market premiums
• Apply differentiation with precision rather than broadly inflating pay
• Maintain consistency across geographies, acquisitions, and growth phases

Now more than ever, organizations must regularly revisit their job architecture to ensure they reflect current and emerging work. As a result, job architecture becomes less of a one-time project and more of an ongoing governance capability. Without this foundation guiding compensation strategies, particularly for current and future roles in STEM, the premium pay levels may become embedded, rather than being intentional.

Beyond pay: the role of total rewards

Compensation alone isn’t sufficient to solve STEM talent challenges. While competitive pay is essential, leading life sciences organizations are broadening their focus to the full employee value proposition.

Career growth, internal mobility, learning opportunities, flexibility, and well-being all play significant roles in attracting and retaining talent. A well-rounded package is particularly valued in appealing to highly specialized talent, since they tend to have multiple employment options at their fingertips. For many professionals in the life sciences field, alignment with organizational purpose and meaningful work can carry as much weight as financial incentives.

This reinforces the need for organizations to prioritize robust total rewards strategies that integrate compensation with career architecture, skills development, and employee experience, as opposed to having each be treated as a separate initiative.

Competing smarter by looking inward

The scarcity of external talent is also prompting life sciences organizations to rethink how they utilize and develop existing capabilities. Rather than defaulting to external hires, many are exploring internal talent marketplaces, project-based work, and skills-based deployment models. Internal mobility can be both a cost-management and retention lever.

Recognition of employee skills can unlock underutilized capacity, support internal mobility, and reduce reliance on costly external hiring. This approach not only helps manage compensation pressure but also strengthens engagement by making career pathways more visible and accessible.

Importantly, this shift requires robust data on roles, skills, and employee feedback to be effective.

Data, analytics, and AI

Data and analytics are essential for decision-making. From identifying future skills gaps to modeling compensation scenarios, analytics enable HR and rewards leaders to shift from reactive responses to proactive planning. Increasingly, life sciences organizations are relying on data-driven insights fueled by AI, not only to accelerate innovation but also to inform workforce and rewards decisions.

The ability to translate workforce data into forward-looking insight is emerging as a source of competitive differentiation. Advanced analytics also allows organizations to model compression risk and assess the long-term impact of targeted premium pay before decisions are made.

When it comes to AI adoption, life sciences organizations are generally further along than many other industries, driven by scientific and technological change. Employees increasingly expect that AI applications will be extended to their work experience, including how rewards are designed and communicated.

Balancing innovation and sustainability

Ultimately, the STEM talent shortage is forcing life sciences organizations to confront a difficult balance. The tension between market responsiveness and structural sustainability is becoming more pronounced. Paying above market may be unavoidable in some cases, but without a clear framework, strong governance, and thoughtful communication, it can destabilize broader compensation structures.

The key to remember is this: success lies not in outspending competitors, but in being precise. Sustainable advantage will come from precision rather than escalation. Precision in identifying critical skills, targeting premiums, leveraging internal talent, and aligning rewards with purpose and growth will define how effectively organizations navigate this next phase of talent competition.

For HR and compensation leaders, it’s a challenge, but not impossible. With the right tools, data, and discipline, it’s an opportunity to elevate total rewards from a cost function to a strategic advantage.

To help your company secure key employees, order the latest edition of the Mercer SIRS® Benchmark: Life Sciences survey. It features compensation data for over 3,000 positions from almost 400 organizations.

About the Authors