10 Jul 2026

What do microbiologists think about artificial intelligence (AI)?

Since the public launch of ChatGPT in 2022, large language models have been rapidly adopted, bringing artificial intelligence (AI) into everyday use and significantly shaping scientific research and publishing.

In March, the Microbiology Society launched a survey to gather insights from the microbiology community on AI. The survey received 63 responses and explored AI across research, publishing, policy and regulation. 1

The survey found that AI adoption is already widespread amongst microbiologists, with 79% of respondents saying they currently use AI in their research. Respondents reported using AI across a wide range of research activities, including data analysis, coding, idea development, writing, literature review and teaching.

When asked specifically about the use of AI in scientific publishing, 51% of respondents said they use AI as a “reader”, for example, finding or understanding papers, and 49% use AI as an “author”, for tasks such as reference management and language editing. Only a small minority of respondents reported using AI as a reviewer (10%) or editor (5%) of scientific papers. The Microbiology Society’s publishing ethics policies on AI set out expectations for the acceptable use of AI for scientific publishing, including by authors and reviewers.

The majority (73%) of respondents believe that AI will have a positive impact on their research, while 14% were unsure of its impact, 8% anticipated a negative impact and 5% thought it would not have an impact. Benefits of AI tools cited by respondents included improved efficiency, increased research output and enhanced accessibility for non-native English speakers and neurodivergent researchers.

Respondents also highlighted several risks associated with adoption of AI in science. Key concerns included the potential for over-reliance on AI tools leading to a loss of critical thinking and scientific writing skills, as well as a reduction in the quality and integrity of scientific papers due to AI-generated content containing inaccurate or fabricated data, made-up references and plagiarism. Respondents also raised issues around data protection, environmental impact and sustainability of AI tools.

Just over half of respondents (54%) expressed an interest in using AI more than they currently do, while 35% were not interested and 11% were unsure. For respondents who did want to increase their use of AI, barriers identified included the cost of subscription-based AI tools, lack of knowledge and training on AI tools that would best meet their needs and compliance with institutional guidelines.

Currently, the UK does not have AI-specific regulation or legislation. Instead, AI is governed at the point of use through existing legal frameworks and principles, such as data protection and equality legislation. Respondents expressed mixed views on AI policy and regulation, with 40% of respondents agreeing with the existing approach, while 33% disagreed and 27% were unsure.

We would like to thank the microbiology community for taking the time to share their views through this survey. These insights provide a valuable contribution to understanding the opportunities and challenges that AI presents for microbiology research and scientific publishing. We look forward to continuing the conversation with our community as the role of AI in microbiology continues to evolve.