I think it is fine to look at the details of what actually was achieved, see if it had an impact. In that particular case, the achievement seems to be contribut

I think it is fine to look at the details of what actually was achieved, see if it had an impact. In that particular case, the achievement seems to be contributing to operations to development of a new candidate COVID vaccine and putting it via a Phase-1 trial in South Africa, with the following result: DNA SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine (Alveavax-V1.2) - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4645890 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4645890 While safe, well tolerated, and shelf stable for >6 months at room temperature, a naked DNA SARS-CoV-2 booster candidate in doses up to 8 mg administered intradermally or subcutaneously, as well as Janssen Ad26.COV2.S comparator, did not significantly increase BA.2 antibody titers in a preimmunized, largely pre-infected population. Not a breakthrough, but it is productive. Likely worth the resources that were spent on this. So it is just good job, keep on going. There's really no point of being negative or annoyed. What is not clear to me, is if the author is applying herself in the place where she has an edge and could be most impactful. A world class poker player and Yale Law School grad potentially can do well in politics. Upholding democracy seems like a kind of annoying job that Yale grads should be on.