Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Sir Austin Bide

Wednesday 28 May 2008 19:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

It was good to see Nicholas Faith crediting Austin Bide [obituary, 24 May] with the principal responsibility for the transformation of Glaxo from the 1970s, an achievement which, as a result of Austin's reluctance to seek personal publicity, has tended to be attributed to others, writes Dr D.W. Budworth.

He was a very different man in private, or in what C.P. Snow called "closed politics", as I learnt from his involvement with the CBI, where, as secretary to the Research and Technology Committee, I first met him in his office in Clarges Street as the junior member of a team of three which had called to invite him to accept the chair of that committee. Behind him was displayed a poster of a rhinoceros, inscribed "I may have my faults, but being wrong isn't one of them", and he gave every appearance of believing it. He was one of three men I have known who could terrorise a roomful of his peers without raising his voice much above a whisper.

Despite this beginning, we were soon on first-name terms and, possibly because I was also a scientist, we got on very well. He was very easy to deal with, as he knew his own mind but would listen to what was said to him and accept advice which appeared to be well founded. He had a very clear strategic view about the pharmaceutical industry, in which he maintained that it was essential to keep up research and development spending and to operate internationally. He once confessed to me that he was no great fan of equity and the way in which its holders exercise influence over companies.

After a year or two, I was promoted to a post which involved looking after the Companies Committee, of which Austin, in common with about 20 chairmen or chief executives of major companies, was a member. One of my qualifications for the post, according to my boss, was "that you can cope with Austin Bide".

About a week after he had joined British Leyland, I met him at a CBI Council meeting and said "Now's your chance to preach your doctrine of making the right products", to which he replied "I already have".

Unfortunately, the combination of the highly empirical tradition of British Leyland, so different from that of the pharmaceutical industry, and the lack of understanding of industry on the part of successive British governments (a point brought out by Tam Dalyell) proved too much even for him to overcome.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in