Monday, July 28, 2014

Suggestions for the ACS' industrial chemists committee?

Also in this week's C&EN, a column talking about what ACS is doing for industrial chemists by Dawn Mason, the chair of Corporation Associates committee, which is the ACS's "formal link between these chemists and the society."

Here are the list of areas the CA commitee is currently working on: 
  • Safety
  • Lobbying Congress 
  • ACS policy statements
  • Educational outreach
  • Entrepreneurialism
  • Awards 
Dr. Mason ends with this statement:
We don’t do this work in a vacuum and are appreciative of all the other committees we team with to accomplish our common goals. We continuously strive to improve ACS’s ability to address the needs of its industrial members. If you have ideas or have identified unmet needs for our industrial members, please send them to industry@acs.org.
I'm a little surprised that there is not more of an "needs of industrial chemists" focus, as opposed to "needs of industrial chemistry", which is where most of the policy focus seems to be. Thinking about wages, salaries, unemployment and growing careers amongst industrial chemists would seem to be a great start. 

8 comments:

  1. "Thinking about wages, salaries, unemployment and growing careers amongst industrial chemists would seem to be a great start. "
    ...and not just for you all, dude!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The article starts off with "SOME 54% of American Chemical Society members identify themselves as industrial chemists; ACS’s Corporation Associates (CA) committee is the formal link between these chemists and the society."
    No, this committee is no such thing. It's a committee of approx. 30 chemical companies that have some sort of relationship with ACS, possibly a paying one. It represents the needs of these companies.
    It does not represent any needs of the chemists who work at such companies.
    What a strange way to describe a committee's make-up. C & E News should do a better job of clarifying what this committee is all about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "C & E News should do a better job of clarifying what this committee is all about."

      I assume you don't actually believe C&EN will ever admit the majority of ACS's members don't have a chair at the table...anywhere.

      Delete
  3. I'm Anon 9:15 pm from yesterday. I made the comment about C & E News doing a better job of clarifying the nature of this committee because I know some of their writers read this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Worth pointing out that the writer of this column was the chair of the committee.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon 9:15 pm here again. I should have phrased my comments from last night as "C & E News should not allow a chair of an ACS committee to publish an article in which that chair makes a statement that is factually incorrect. The committee represents the management of the 30 chemical companies. It does not represent industrial chemists, either at those companies, or any company."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you really expect the editorial staff of C&EN to correct a committee chair...on the purview of his own committee?

      If the writers actually do read the comments here, I'm sure they got a good laugh out of that one.

      Delete
  6. How about dividing the ACS into two separate societies: The first would be the American Chemistry Professors' and Executive's Society (ACPES) while of course the second would be the American Chemists' Sociey (AChS)? Anyone at the CEPA meeting feel up to proposing this?

    ReplyDelete