The work
You will review AI-generated answers to CRISPR and gene-editing prompts. Your assessments will help identify inaccurate, unsafe, misleading, or potentially harmful content in a sensitive biological domain.
- Evaluate and annotate AI-generated responses about CRISPR and gene editing.
- Assess scientific accuracy, safety relevance, and how sensitive biological topics are handled.
- Identify biosecurity concerns, dual-use risks, and misrepresentations of gene-editing techniques.
- Write clear feedback and explain the reasoning behind each evaluation decision.
- Complete a defined set of annotation tasks during the one-week project window.
What it takes and project setup
This role is for someone with advanced academic training and practical CRISPR experience. Familiarity with biosecurity, dual-use research, and gene-editing applications will support the evaluation work.
- Remote, asynchronous, project-based engagement.
- Approximately 20 or more hours per week over one week.
- Open to candidates in the countries listed for this role.
- Fluent in English.
- Currently enrolled in or completed a PhD at Year 2 or later, or enrolled in a Master's program, in a relevant field.
- At least two years of hands-on CRISPR or gene-editing bench experience.
- Working knowledge of CRISPR/Cas9, Cas12, and Cas13 systems.
- Experience with gRNA design tools such as Benchling, CRISPick, or CHOPCHOP.
- Experience with cell-line work and off-target analysis methods such as CIRCLE-seq or GUIDE-seq.
- Helpful background includes therapeutic or disease-focused CRISPR, base or prime editing, gene drives, biosafety policy, BSL-2 or higher laboratory environments, or Python or R for bioinformatics and sequence analysis.
How it works
Apply on OpenTrain with your resume, then complete the application on the hiring site.
About AI training work
AI training work uses human review to help artificial intelligence systems produce more accurate and safer results. Subject matter experts are especially important when evaluating technical or sensitive topics because they can recognize errors and risks that general reviewers may miss.