Yeah, in my experience, most biostatisticians (especially those involved in public health and clinical research) are SAS folks. Some of that is inertia- a lot of these people learned SAS at the same time they were learning stats. However, I think that most of SAS's continuing prevalence is due to the fact that, for all of its (many, many, many) problems, SAS is a freakin' log chipper when it comes to statistics- it doesn't care how much data you throw at it, or what kinds of crazy and/or exotic statistics you ask it for- if you can decipher its syntax, you can get it to do it.
Even for stuff that a lot of other programs can do just fine, SAS often has an edge. For example, everybody and their brother can do a logistic regression model... but SAS can give you confidence intervals for all kinds of crazy parts of the model that SPSS won't even bother calculating and that R will only give you point estimates for.
The other great thing about SAS is that a lot of the good statistics books from the last twenty or thirty years include SAS sample code- for example, I'm currently having to do some off-the-beaten-path ANOVA stuff, and the reference I'm using (Edwards' "Analysis of Variance for the Behavioral Sciences") uses SAS as its language of choice.
That said, I personally find the SAS "language" to be alternatively bewildering and nostalgia-inducing (the "cards" command, anybody?). SAS is the only language about which I can honestly say "it makes R's syntax look clean and predictable". Also, the Windows version of SAS is an absolute abomination from a UI standpoint. And, their licensing schemes are draconian, and installing the damn thing can easily take an entire day, especially if (say, for example) the installer gets confused because you've already got a JDK installed on your computer. Not that I'm bitter, or anything...
Of course, as others have noted, in bioinformatics, R either is already the default or is almost there. I know that in my department's bioinformatics courses, they use R, Python, and Perl almost exclusively, and only break out the SAS when there's something specific they need it to do.
Even for stuff that a lot of other programs can do just fine, SAS often has an edge. For example, everybody and their brother can do a logistic regression model... but SAS can give you confidence intervals for all kinds of crazy parts of the model that SPSS won't even bother calculating and that R will only give you point estimates for.
The other great thing about SAS is that a lot of the good statistics books from the last twenty or thirty years include SAS sample code- for example, I'm currently having to do some off-the-beaten-path ANOVA stuff, and the reference I'm using (Edwards' "Analysis of Variance for the Behavioral Sciences") uses SAS as its language of choice.
That said, I personally find the SAS "language" to be alternatively bewildering and nostalgia-inducing (the "cards" command, anybody?). SAS is the only language about which I can honestly say "it makes R's syntax look clean and predictable". Also, the Windows version of SAS is an absolute abomination from a UI standpoint. And, their licensing schemes are draconian, and installing the damn thing can easily take an entire day, especially if (say, for example) the installer gets confused because you've already got a JDK installed on your computer. Not that I'm bitter, or anything...
Of course, as others have noted, in bioinformatics, R either is already the default or is almost there. I know that in my department's bioinformatics courses, they use R, Python, and Perl almost exclusively, and only break out the SAS when there's something specific they need it to do.