I think it's interesting that the change in job growth is different (revised upwards) from 2010, even as the number of chemists has actually gone down (2,100 fewer chemists in 2010 than in 2008 -- totally believeable.) The numbers in the attached Excel spreadsheet are a gold mine of data that I'll be unearthing on a regular basis.
The job growth comments from BLS are worth quoting:
Declines in employment of chemists is [sic] expected at chemical and drug manufacturers. To control costs and minimize risks, many of these companies are expected to partner with research universities and smaller scientific research and development (R&D) and testing services firms to perform work formerly done by in-house chemists. Additionally, companies in these industries are expected to conduct an increasing amount of manufacturing and R&D in other countries, further limiting domestic employment growth.That the leadership of the American Chemical Society is not directly addressing this issue (i.e. slow job growth, continued shedding of industrially-employed chemists) with its members on a regular basis is a frustrating, disappointing thing. While perhaps overwrought, the concept of "fiddling while Rome burns" comes to mind.