Dear John,

The first message you posted to the mailing list was indeed circulated, 
as was this one. The message that you received about the first one being 
"undeliverable" must have been an automated one refering to an 
individual recipient.

I am not at this point going to rehearse the reasons why I and many 
others consider NRC's actions in this matter shocking and unacceptable, 
or why I believe that governments should invest in fundamental research 
through both academic and non-academic routes. There has been enough 
public discussion of that. However, you are entitled to your opinions 
and I am happy that you are circulating them publicly, where our 
scientific peers can judge them.

I do however consider your personal comments directed at Ian Mills 
unpleasant and unjustifiable.

Jeremy

John Ogilvie wrote:
> Dear Jeremy,
>      After Ian Mills sent, some days ago, a letter about this situation 
> at the National Research Council of Canada, I replied to him personally as
> follows (to which, naturally in the circumstances, he failed to respond).
> ************************************************************************
> To: Ian Mills <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: The end of high-resolution spectroscopy at NRC?
> 
> Dear Ian,
>       I wondered whether my comment to the messages of Jeremy and Wolfgang
> had indeed been circulated, because I had received no such notice 
> through that circulation and because I had received a notice of 
> "undeliverable", but perhaps the latter pertained to only one intended 
> recipient on that list.
>       Have you by any chance read the Act of the Canadian Parliament of
> 1912 that established National Research Council (of Canada), which might
> allow you the opportunity to consider the nature of the intention of
> those members of Parliament in relation to the research of Philip Bunker
> and Robert McKellar?  Have you read any succeeding Acts of the Parliament
> of Canada that pertain to this National Research Council?  As a citizen
> of Canada, and even sometime a resident thereof, I have some slight
> acquaintance with both the formality and the tradition of that institution.
>       You allude to the "recognition of academic science", but surely
> you might agree that the proper location for academic science is an
> academic institution, such as a university of the kind in which you might
> be located, rather than a governmental laboratory with a mandate for
> research related to practical aspects of a national economy, despite
> the questionably hypocritical publicity of that laboratory.
>       Perhaps, in your old age, you have difficulty distinguishing these
> subtle aspects.
>       There are many knowledgeable and significant members of academic
> staff of Canadian universities who have long wondered at the anomalies
> present in activities within laboratories (or offices) of the National 
> Research Council of Canada in relation to the defining legislation.
> To such persons the present rationalization presents no untoward event.
>       Yours sincerely,
>            John Ogilvie
> *************************************************************************
>      So far, all that I have read in messages circulated within this news
> group has indicated that Philip Bunker and Robert McKellar had received
> letters terminating their employment; your letter appended below alludes
> to others.  Were such letters the first and unprepared intimation of this
> impending action?  Being acquainted somewhat with both Canadian laws and
> conditions in Her Majesty's Canadian public (civil) service, in relation
> to which there are professional associations and trade unions or the
> equivalent, I find such an unprecedented action highly unlikely.  In such
> conditions there would exist appropriate internal procedures and 
> mechanisms to protest undesired actions of an employer.
>      Moreover, many significant members of academic staff of Canadian
> universities have looked askance at the anachronistic continuation of
> 'academic' research in those laboratories of the National Research
> Council of Canada, both when there is no particular justification of
> such activity in the national interest and when comparable organisations
> in other countries within the British Commonwealth of Nations have long
> ago terminated such activity; for instance, the Council for Scientific
> and Industrial Research in Republic of South Africa undertook such a
> rationalization of its internal work about year 1980.
>      Despite the intentionally abrupt and perhaps -- in the unlikely event
> of lack of preliminary consultation -- crude imposition of these 
> terminations,
> truly visionary employees in the positions of those named persons should
> have foreseen such a possibility, because there is scarce provision in
> Acts of the Parliament of Canada governing National Research Council of
> Canada for the continuation of such academic research.  Have those persons
> like yourself who are active in organising this protest condescended to
> become even slightly acquainted with the pertinent legislation emanating 
> from that Parliament?
>      For persons outside Canada or other than Canadians to protest to the
> Government of Canada or one of its responsible Ministers about such lawful
> and reasonable activities smacks of a presumption to interfere in the 
> internal activities of a sovereign nation, but there is naturally no 
> legal impropriety in such petitions for the sake of personal attachments.
>      This entire campaign, apart from being inevitably fruitless, seems
> more than faintly pathetic in view of far greater injustices in the world,
> and even in Canada, than the legal termination of employment of persons
> who, if not ripe for retirement in any case, might become employed more 
> legitimately in a truly academic milieu, such as a university in Canada 
> or elsewhere.
>       Yours sincerely,
>               John Ogilvie
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, J M Hutson wrote:
> 
>> I thought I should send a progress report on what's happening (that I 
>> know about) in protesting to NRC about the redundancy notices issued 
>> to Phil Bunker, Bob McKellar and others at NRC in Ottawa.
>>
>> After considerable discussion, I decided that my own best action was 
>> to coordinate a letter to the Canadian Minister of Industry from a 
>> small group of senior British scientists. That has now been sent.
>>
>> Tucker Carrington (Jr) and Wolfgang Jaeger are coordinating a letter 
>> to be sent from the Canadian scientific community.
>>
>> Several other people intend (I believe) to send letters on behalf of 
>> specific groups such as the UK RSC Spectroscopy and Dynamics Group, 
>> the RSC Gas Kinetics Group and the IoP DAMOPP Division.
>>
>> Beyond that, there were a lot of requests to set up an online petition 
>> that people in the community could sign. Eckart Wrede tells me that he 
>> is in the process of organising that and will post an announcement 
>> here when it is actually available for people to add their names.
>>
>> I don't know of specific action being taken in the USA or in other 
>> countries.
>>
>> Jeremy Hutson

-- 
Prof. J. M. Hutson
Dept. of Chemistry
University of Durham
Durham                       Tel.  (0191) 334 2147 (UK)
DH1 3LE                      Tel. +44 191 334 2147 (International)
England                      FAX: +44 191 384 4737

World-Wide Web home page: http://www.dur.ac.uk/j.m.hutson/

To join or leave the molecular-dynamics-news email list, go to:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/molecular-dynamics-news.html