Less than a decade of experience and he becomes a director at one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. He resume really shows he's done basically nothing of value and could have likely been bottom of his class throughout his career. However, being gay and black means he get promoted over basically anyone. No one is surprised that pfizer would create illness just to sell treatments. However, it seems like a lot of people are surprised by how much diversity overrides any semblance of meritocracy.
Ironically, I think the diversity part of this story might end up forcing reform more than the gain of function part.
But did they get a good ESG (under social diversity component) score out of a gay poc director? He is replaceable, they'll just slot in another gay poc.
(post is archived)