1. Helping chemists find jobs in a tough market. 2. Towards a quantitative understanding of the quality of the chemistry job market.
Based on those two statements I will definitely vote for Dr. Wu."To engage with corporate and political leaders to promote actions that would make the U.S. a more attractive place for corporate investment." = more tax cuts for rich people! Woo!
How is that worse than "we must advocate for tax credits and more competitive trade policies, reduced regulatory and economic barriers"? Seriously? She wants not only tax cuts, but less regulation as well, and all she plans to do is engage, advocate and explore.Too bad neither of them is a scientist - one seems to have never been involved in any sort of research activity, another has been pushing papers for the past 25 years.
Do either of them say anything?The ACS is about as useful at creating jobs as diesel spark plugs."To engage with corporate and political leaders to promote actions that would make the U.S. a more attractive place for corporate investment."Gosh, hard to imagine no one has thought of that!And as #2 states "I have worked for years to increase awareness among legislators and the general public to the importance of science...". Really? How's that been working out?How much does this position pay?
Anon's comment about reduced regulatory reminds me of a blog post I want to write, except I'm no longer blogging. Oh well, I'll just complain locally I guess.
In Marinda Wu's defense she has been a vocal advocate for chemists for decades, I've seen her personally do an outstanding job defending science and education spending to lawmakers oh the hill.