Biology Expert (PhD)

$80–90/hrrate as listed

Review and score AI-generated answers to graduate-level biology problems, and write original questions that expose gaps in model reasoning. micro1 recruits through an AI-led screening interview and observed rates for this role sit in the $80–90/hr range.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work involves

You will work against a queue of biology prompts — molecular and cell biology, genetics, biochemistry, microbiology, physiology, or evolutionary biology, depending on where your training sits. Typical tasks include comparing two model responses and justifying which is stronger, correcting a response that is fluent but wrong about a mechanism, and authoring new questions with reference answers that a strong model should plausibly fail. Written rationale matters as much as the score: reviewers downstream need to understand why a claim about, say, a signaling cascade or a knockout phenotype is incorrect, with a citation or a mechanistic argument rather than an assertion.

Because the category is labeled engineering, some batches lean quantitative — interpreting figures, evaluating experimental design, checking statistical reasoning in a methods description, or assessing bioinformatics and sequence-analysis steps. Expect calibration rounds early on, where your scores are compared against a rubric and other experts, followed by feedback and possible re-calibration.

What the platform screens for

A verifiable PhD (or near-completion) in a biology discipline, with publications or thesis work you can describe in detail.
Depth under follow-up: micro1's AI interviewer probes past your first answer, so a confident but shallow explanation of a mechanism tends to surface quickly.
Clear technical writing in English — concise, unhedged, and specific.
Judgment about uncertainty: knowing when a question is genuinely contested in the literature and saying so.

Logistics

Fully remote, asynchronous, contractor basis. Volume fluctuates with client demand; many experts treat this as 5–20 hours per week alongside academic or industry work, with some projects offering more during ramp-up. Pay is stated as observed for this listing, not guaranteed — actual rates vary by project, task type, and calibration performance.

What they look for

biology expertise
critical evaluation
scientific communication
attention to detail

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Do you hold a PhD in a biology discipline (molecular, cell, genetics, biochemistry, microbiology, physiology, or evolutionary biology), or are you in dissertation stage with a defense scheduled within the next 6 months?
PhD in biology or near-completion · required
Can you describe in detail a thesis chapter or published paper (first or middle author) where you led or co-led the research, including the specific experiment, your role, and the key finding?
Thesis or publication detail · required
Are you able to write technical explanations in clear, concise English without a co-author or editor to substantially revise grammar or phrasing?
English scientific writing · required
Can you commit to a minimum of 5 hours per week, on a flexible asynchronous schedule, with no guarantee of steady volume?
Asynchronous availability · preferred

0 of 4 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 12 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether you can articulate mechanistic depth and specificity under scrutiny, and whether you actually conducted the work or are repeating a supervisor's framing.
A strong answer: Name a concrete experiment or analysis you designed or executed, describe what you measured or compared, state the result with a specific number or phenotype, and connect it to a biological mechanism or gap in the literature — not just 'it was novel.'
Where people lose it: Reciting a paper's abstract or your co-author's contribution without being able to explain your own role, the decision points you made, or what you would do differently now.