Introduction
Somewhere in the first or second conversation of a regulatory affairs interview process, a recruiter is going to ask what salary you're looking for. It usually comes early, often before you've met the hiring manager, seen the full job scope, or learned much about the company's benefits and bonus structure. Handled badly, this moment can screen you out of a role you would have been happy with, or lock you into a number well below what the role was actually budgeted for. Handled well, it protects your leverage without wasting anyone's time. This is a distinct conversation from negotiating an actual offer later in the process — it's an earlier, lower-stakes exchange of information, and it calls for a different approach.
Why this question shows up so early
Recruiters ask about salary expectations early for a practical reason: they're trying to confirm there's enough overlap between what you're looking for and what the role pays before either of you invests more time. That's a legitimate goal, not a trap by default, even though it can feel like one. Most regulatory affairs roles, especially at mid-sized and larger companies, are tied to a defined salary band set well before the job is posted. The recruiter usually isn't fishing to lowball you personally; they're checking whether your number and the role's band are in the same neighborhood.
That said, the question does create real risk for the candidate. Say a number too low and you may get the job at a rate below what the company would have paid, with no realistic way to correct it later — the anchor tends to stick. Say a number too high without knowing the band and you may get filtered out of a role you'd have taken happily at what it actually pays, over a number you invented with incomplete information.
Do your homework before the call, not during it
The single best way to answer this question well is to already know a realistic range before anyone asks. That means researching what similar regulatory affairs roles pay at a comparable level of seniority, industry (pharma, biotech, and medical device pay scales differ, and company size and funding stage matter within each), and geography before you're on the phone. Useful sources include regulatory affairs professional association salary surveys (RAPS periodically publishes one), general compensation data aggregators cross-checked against multiple sources rather than trusted individually, and conversations with peers or a regulatory affairs recruiter who works the space regularly and can speak to what similar roles have actually paid recently. None of these sources is perfectly precise, which is exactly why the goal is a realistic range, not a single confident number.
Give a range, not a single number, and anchor it to research
When the question comes, a well-constructed range beats a single figure. A single number reads as either a hard floor you might be leaving money on the table above, or a number you'll be expected to justify if it's questioned. A range, especially one you can briefly explain ("based on what I've seen for regulatory affairs specialist roles at this level in the device space, I'm generally looking in the range of X to Y"), signals that you've done real homework and gives the recruiter room to tell you honestly whether the role's band overlaps with it.
It's reasonable to build in some flexibility at the low end of your range if the total compensation picture — bonus structure, equity, benefits, remote flexibility — could offset a lower base. It's also entirely fair to ask the recruiter directly what the budgeted range for the role is before you name your own number. Many companies, particularly in states and cities with pay transparency laws, are required to disclose it or will do so if asked plainly. Asking isn't aggressive; it's a normal, common question in this exact moment of the process.
What to do if you genuinely don't have enough information yet
Sometimes you're asked for a number before you understand the role well enough to price it confidently — the posting was vague, or the recruiter reached out to you rather than the other way around. In that case, it's fair to say so honestly: that you'd like to learn more about the scope of the role before landing on a specific range, but that based on your general experience level you'd expect it to fall within a certain broad band. This isn't evasive if it's genuine, and most reasonable recruiters will accept it and move the conversation forward rather than pushing for a number you don't have grounds to give yet.
A few ways this conversation commonly goes wrong
A handful of mistakes show up repeatedly in this part of the process. The first is anchoring too low out of a fear of pricing yourself out, especially common among candidates who are eager to move on from a current role or worried about seeming unrealistic — this is precisely the mistake that costs the most over time, since an initial lowball number is hard to walk back later in the process. The second is giving a number pulled from a single source, like one salary aggregator site or one conversation with a friend at a different kind of company, without cross-checking it against anything else; regulatory affairs pay varies enough by industry and company size that a single data point is a weak basis for a range. The third is treating the recruiter as an adversary in this early conversation rather than as someone who, in most cases, genuinely wants to find a number that works for both sides so the process can keep moving — a collaborative tone tends to get better information from them than a guarded one.
A less obvious mistake is failing to account for the full compensation picture when comparing your range to a company's offer. Base salary is only part of the picture in most regulatory affairs roles at mid-sized and larger companies, particularly in biotech, where equity, signing bonuses, and annual bonus targets can meaningfully change the total value of an offer even when the base salary looks unremarkable on its own. When you're building your target range, it's worth thinking in terms of total compensation rather than base salary alone, and asking the recruiter how the company's total package is typically structured before drawing conclusions from base salary figures alone.
Don't confuse this conversation with the final negotiation
It's worth separating this early alignment conversation from the negotiation that happens after an offer is extended. The early conversation is lower stakes and mostly about confirming there's enough overlap to keep going; it isn't the moment to extract your absolute maximum number, and treating it that way can create friction before you've even met the hiring manager. Once you have a real offer in hand, you'll have far more leverage and far more specific information — the actual role scope, the actual team, the actual full compensation package — to negotiate from. The early conversation exists to get you to that later, higher-leverage moment without wasting time on a mismatch neither side wants.
A note on internal recruiters versus outside recruiters
Company internal recruiters are generally working from a fixed band they can't move much, so the conversation with them is mostly about confirming fit within that band. Outside or contingency recruiters placing you with a client company sometimes have more room to advocate for you specifically, since their fee is often tied to the offer they help negotiate, which can make them a genuine ally in getting a stronger number — worth remembering if you're working with a third-party regulatory affairs recruiter rather than going direct.
What a well-constructed answer actually sounds like
It helps to have a rough structure in mind rather than trying to improvise the phrasing on the spot. A workable version usually does three things in order: acknowledges the question directly rather than deflecting, states a researched range with a brief note on how you arrived at it, and leaves an opening for the recruiter to share the role's own band. Something like naming your range, briefly mentioning that it reflects your research into similar regulatory affairs roles at that level and in that industry, and then asking whether that aligns with what the role has budgeted, accomplishes all three without over-explaining or sounding rehearsed. The goal isn't a perfect script; it's walking in with a clear structure so you're not composing your answer for the first time while the recruiter is waiting on the line.
It's also worth deciding in advance how you'll respond if the recruiter's stated band comes in noticeably below your range. There's no single right answer, but deciding ahead of time whether you'd still want to continue the conversation, and under what conditions, means you won't be making that judgment call under the mild pressure of a live call. Some candidates choose to continue anyway if the role is otherwise a strong fit and there's room to revisit compensation once an offer is on the table; others decide a large enough gap isn't worth pursuing further. Either is reasonable, but it's a decision worth making calmly beforehand rather than reactively in the moment.
Conclusion
The early salary expectations question isn't designed to trap you, but answering it without preparation puts you at a real disadvantage either way it goes. Walk into that first recruiter conversation with a researched range you can explain, ask directly what the role's budgeted band is if it hasn't been shared, and treat this exchange as what it actually is: an early alignment check, not the negotiation itself. That distinction alone will save you from most of the common mistakes candidates make in this part of a regulatory affairs job search.