What changed
Anthropic published a privacy-preserving study of 207,000 Claude and Claude Code research sessions. It reports heavier relative use in formal sciences, with data analysis representing about one-third of Claude sessions and nearly half of Claude Code research sessions.
Why it matters
The study supplies behavior evidence about where scientists actually use assistants rather than only surveying intended adoption. It also exposes a gap between common use in analysis and writing and scientists' stated importance of idea generation and data gathering.
What to do
Use the task taxonomy to audit a local, consented sample of research workflows. Separate analysis, writing, ideation and data collection, then compare error review, time saved and scientific reproducibility before changing policy or staffing.
Caveat
The sample covers Anthropic products and observed sessions, not all scientists or AI tools. Privacy-preserving classification and user self-selection limit interpretation, and scenario estimates are not measured discovery acceleration or causal productivity results.