If you’ve ever applied for a role in life sciences, you’ve likely encountered the infamous “black box,” AKA the Applicant Tracking System (ATS). It scans your CV, filters based on keywords, and often makes a decision about you before a human ever sees your profile.
The irony? The life sciences industry is built on precision, expertise, and nuance. Yet, applicant tracking systems often lack all three.
The Issue
Roles in biotech, pharma, and medical research are highly specialised. Candidates often bring a unique blend of skills, from regulatory compliance and lab management to cross-functional project leadership. Yet, an ATS can overlook these strengths simply because the right keyword wasn’t included.
When that happens, organisations lose access to the very people capable of driving innovation. The candidate experience suffers, too. Many describe applying as sending their CV into a void with no feedback, no clarity, and no human connection. Over time, this erodes trust between employers and skilled professionals.
A Better Way Forward
As recruiters, when we work with candidates, the process looks entirely different. We discuss their experience, motivations, and skills in depth. We explain role specifications clearly. And we always provide feedback, regardless of outcome.
Coming from the pharma business side into recruitment, I recognised how much time, resources, and credibility are lost when hiring depends solely on automation. That’s why I focus on precise, people-centred recruitment, combining scientific understanding with personal engagement to find the right fit fast.
The Bigger Question
Can the current system be repaired… or does it need to be replaced entirely?
AI can support recruitment, but it shouldn’t replace human judgment. The most effective hiring combines technology with empathy, where data helps, but people ultimately decide (not the other way around).
What do you think?
Have you been filtered out by an ATS? Or do you believe these systems can evolve to be more inclusive and transparent?