DOCSLIB.ORG

The Work of Research Councils UK

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Work of Research Councils UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee The Work of Research Councils UK Sixth Report of Session 2004–05 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 16 March 2005 HC 219 Published on 23 March 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £15.50 The Science and Technology Committee The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of Science and Technology and its associated public bodies. Current membership Dr Ian Gibson MP (Labour, Norwich North) (Chairman) Paul Farrelly MP (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme) Dr Evan Harris MP (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon) Kate Hoey MP (Labour, Vauxhall) Dr Brian Iddon MP (Labour, Bolton South East) Mr Robert Key MP (Conservative, Salisbury) Mr Tony McWalter MP (Labour, Hemel Hempstead) Dr Andrew Murrison MP (Conservative, Westbury) Geraldine Smith MP (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale) Bob Spink MP (Conservative, Castle Point) Dr Desmond Turner MP (Labour, Brighton Kemptown) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental Select Committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/s&tcom A list of Reports from the Committee in the present Parliament is included at the back of this volume. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are: Chris Shaw (Clerk); Emily Commander (Second Clerk); Alun Roberts (Committee Specialist); Hayaatun Sillem (Committee Specialist); Ana Ferreira (Committee Assistant); Robert Long (Senior Office Clerk); and Christine McGrane (Committee Secretary). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Science and Technology Committee, Committee Office, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2793; the Committee’s e- mail address is: [email protected] The Work of Research Councils UK 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 2 Background 6 Establishment 6 Mission and aims 6 Organisation 7 Reviews 8 3 Relationship with OST 10 Previous arrangements 10 New arrangements 11 Independence of RCUK 12 Joint Strategy Group 15 A voice of their own 15 Leadership 17 4 Strategic role of RCUK 20 Role in Higher Education policy-making 20 Skills shortages 21 Allocation of the DGRC’s discretionary fund 23 Regional role 24 European dimension 25 European Research Council 25 EU Framework Programmes and full economic costs 25 Large facilities 26 5 Joint working 28 Setting the strategy 28 Balance of funding 28 Success rates and demand management 30 The Treasury and performance management 30 Multidisciplinary research 31 Peer review 32 Science in Society 33 Administration 34 Joint Electronic Submissions 36 6 Conclusion 38 Conclusions and recommendations 39 ANNEX A: Recommendations of the 2003 Research Councils UK Review 42 2 Optional header ANNEX B: OST 2004 Review of Research Councils UK: Recommendations and Implementation Plan 43 Formal minutes 47 Witnesses 48 Written Memoranda 48 The Work of Research Councils UK 3 Summary This Report completes our scrutiny of the Research Councils, which we have carried out over the course of this Parliament. We have found that the failure of OST to establish clear objectives for RCUK on its establishment in 2002 hampered its efforts to achieve a profile and a place in the policy- making framework that might have been expected. We welcome the reforms that have been made to the structure of RCUK in response to the OST’s 2004 review of the organisation but we do not believe that they have gone far enough. The distinction between the roles of the Director General of the Research Councils (DGRC), on behalf of Government, and that of the Research Councils, which remain outside Government, has still not been clearly made. We have recommended a slight change in existing arrangements to make the distinction clearer. We have also criticised Government for being reluctant to allow Research Councils to express their views independently. We have found that RCUK has performed a valuable service in promoting best practice across the Research Councils and the harmonisation of administrative procedures. However, we have not been persuaded that it is doing enough to exert influence on behalf of the Research Councils across Government. We have argued that the appointment of an independent, high profile figurehead for the organisation would be likely to increase its visibility and influence and that OST should review the existing position after a further two years. In the longer term, we would like to see RCUK assuming complete independence in determining scientific priorities. Government should fund the science it needs directly rather than seeking to influence the Research Councils’ priorities. We have argued for a system in which the value of R&D is firmly entrenched right across Government and the Research Councils are left to pursue long term scientific goals rather than those of the Government of the day. We believe that this would be a better model for the successful stewardship of the UK research base and the use of science by Government. The Work of Research Councils UK 5 1 Introduction 1. Shortly after the Committee’s establishment in the 2001 Parliament we identified as one of our core tasks scrutiny of the Research Councils. We set ourselves the target of scrutinising all seven by the end of the Parliament and we have now met this aim.1 Our scrutiny would not be complete without a look at Research Councils UK (RCUK), the umbrella body established in 2002 to provide strategic focus and a single voice for all the Research Councils. As well as examining the effectiveness of RCUK itself, we aimed to follow-up on some of the themes that have emerged during our scrutiny of the individual Research Councils for which RCUK has some responsibility. We formed an initial view in our 2003 Office of Science and Technology (OST) Scrutiny Report that RCUK had been a “useful initiative” and looked forward to monitoring greater collaboration between Research Councils and the convergence of their administrative procedures.2 This Report fulfils this intention. 2. We announced our inquiry on 15 November 2004. We received a comprehensive memorandum from RCUK setting out the steps it had taken towards implementing the recommendations we have made with cross-Council implications as well as commenting on our other specific areas of long-standing interest. Although we invited written evidence, and received five other submissions, we were aware that many of the organisations most likely to submit evidence had already participated in the OST’s own review of RCUK, which took place during 2004 and resulted in the publication of the Ruffles Report in October that year.3 Whilst our own inquiry was somewhat wider than OST’s review, we nonetheless sought to minimise duplication and workload by asking OST for the evidence gathered by the Ruffles Review team as part of its work. We are very grateful to OST for providing this material, which we have drawn upon in our own scrutiny. 3. We held one evidence session, on 2 February, with the Chair of the RCUK Executive Group, Professor Ian Diamond, and Helen Thorne, Head of the RCUK Secretariat. We are grateful to those who submitted written and oral evidence, but particularly to RCUK for its detailed written memorandum and prompt answers to follow-up questions. 1 A complete list is contained at pages 43-44 below. 2 Fourth Report of Session 2003-04, The Office of Science and Technology: Scrutiny Report 2003, HC 316, para 37 3 OST, OST Review of Research Councils UK, July 2004 [hereafter referred to as the “Ruffles Review”] 6 The Work of Research Councils UK 2 Background Establishment 4. The establishment of RCUK followed directly from the 2001 Quinquennial Review of the Grant Awarding Research Councils (QQR). This review concluded that the Research Council system was working well; that there was real strength in diversity from having separate Councils; and that Councils had made good progress in working together in many areas. However, the QQR also identified the need to embed a culture of collective responsibility and collaboration within the Councils to enable them to increase their influence on national and international strategy and policy development. It also wanted them to work with their stakeholders in a more collegiate fashion. It recommended the establishment of RCUK as a means of achieving these outcomes.4 Specifically, it identified five aims for RCUK: i. Increase the collective visibility, leadership and policy influence of the Research Councils; ii. Provide a single focus for collective dialogue with stakeholders, especially universities, business, other major science funders and the EU; iii. Promote earlier, more active and inclusive involvement of the Research Councils in policy and strategic development and decision-making for the UK science base and international programmes; iv. Secure greater cohesiveness and collective working amongst the Councils and OST, where this is necessary or desirable to achieve scientific or strategic goals; and v. Secure greater harmonisation or commonality of operational and administrative functions where this is to the advantage of the stakeholder community or will improve the collective efficiency or effectiveness of the Councils.5 Mission and aims 5. Accordingly, RCUK was established in May 2002. It is a strategic partnership between the UK’s seven Research Councils and the Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB), which is due to become a Research Council in April 2005.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Factsheet: Research and Innovation in Scotland
    Research and innovation in Scotland Scientific research and innovation drive the economy, create and innovation across public services, universities, colleges jobs and enrich and advance our society. In recognition of and business, as well as attracting global investment. But this, there is broad consensus across the political spectrum what does delivering this target look like for Scotland? to increase total investment in UK research and development (R&D). The UK government has committed to ensure that This document provides an insight into the current total investment in UK R&D reaches 2.4% of UK GDP by 2027. research and innovation landscape in Scotland to inform The Royal Society is calling for investment in R&D to reach discussions over how people across Scotland can have 3% of GDP by 2030. To achieve this, the UK must create a the opportunity to contribute to and share the benefits vibrant environment that fosters and encourages research of R&D investment in the UK. How much is spent on R&D activity in Scotland? FIGURE 1 R&D spend in Scotland1. 8.2% of the UK’s population £2.7bn 7% of £498 is based in Scotland2. in 2018 UK total per capita Who performs R&D in Scotland? FIGURE 2 Percentage distribution of R&D spend in Scotland and UK wide3. Government Private Government Private and UKRI non-profit and UKRI non-profit 7% 1% 7% 2% Higher Higher Education Education 42% Scotland 24% UK wide £2.7bn £37.1bn Business Business 50% 68% RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SCOTLAND – MAY 2021 1 Where does R&D take place in Scotland? FIGURE 3 Map of R&D activity in Scotland4.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation Toolkit Science and Innovation Network
    INNOVATION TOOLKIT SCIENCE AND INNOVATION NETWORK INNOVATION IN THE UK Powered by INNOVATION IN THE UK: UNDERSTANDING AND CONNECTING WITH THE UK INNOVATION SYSTEM - CLICK A SECTION TO GET STARTED - > > > Introduction to the UK Comparative performance Understanding UK innovation system of UK innovation Innovation policy INTRODUCTION TO THE UK INNOVATION SYSTEM INTRODUCTION TO THE COMPARATIVE UNDERSTANDING UK INNOVATION A UK INNOVATION SYSTEM B PERFORMANCE OF THE UK C INNOVATION POLICY TOOLKIT INNOVATION SYSTEM 4 PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR INNOVATION IN THE UK (FEATURES AND CONDITIONS) CREATING KNOWLEDGE EXPLOITING KNOWLEDGE Stable, independent science and Ranked one of the best countries research funding sector: in the world for University- business interaction: Research Councils provide competitive grants for specific projects and programmes. !! Specific competitive funding streams for knowledge exchange such as the •! Intermediary Higher Education Innovation Fund Higher Education Funding Councils provide • Universities block grant funding to Universities on the ! organisations (HEIF). basis of quality measured by the Research •! Public Sector •! Technology Assessment Exercise. • Research transfer offices !! Growing networks of university ! exploitation funds like Fusion IP Establishments •! Business £5.85bn govt spend for science and research incubation and IP group. •! Research from the budget in 2015-16 including both Funding bodies •! Science & resource and capital expenditure. innovation parks !! Large and diverse public and private commercialisation
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity Results for UKRI Funding Data 2014-15 to 2018-19 Diversity Results for UKRI Funding Data
    Diversity results for UKRI funding data 2014-15 to 2018-19 Diversity results for UKRI funding data Contents Executive summary 03 Background 04 Diversity characteristics 06 Diversity analysis 09 Award rates 11 Award value 13 Studentship starts 15 References 16 2 Diversity results for UKRI funding data Executive summary In June 2020, UK Research and Innovation 3 Award values also differ by diversity characteristics. (UKRI) is publishing data for diversity Our analysis indicates that female and ethnic minority awardees tend to apply for and win smaller awards. For characteristics of its funding applicants example, the median award value for female awardees and recipients for the past five years. This is approximately 15% less than the median award publication differs from previous data values of males (£336,000 vs £395,000). Similarly, the releases in the following ways: median award value for ethnic minority awardees is approximately 8% less than that of white awardees (£353,000 vs. £383,000). This finding highlights a need ■ For the first time, data have been harmonised across to understand whether ethnic minority and female all research councils applicants tend to apply for smaller awards, or whether ■ The publication includes new, previously unpublished, there is an influence of other factors such as career data on award values stage and discipline, which in turn affect award value. ■ The data are being made available in a range of formats to facilitate access and analysis by the community We advise against using these findings alone to draw conclusions on the relationship between protected characteristics and application and award rates.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee: Inquiry Into Open Access: Response from the Royal Astronomical Society
    House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee: Inquiry into Open Access: Response from the Royal Astronomical Society Executive summary 1. This is the formal submission to the BIS Committee inquiry into Open Access from the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS). With around 3750 members (Fellows), the RAS is the leading learned society representing the interests of astronomers, space scientists, planetary scientists and geophysicists. 2. Our response centres on three of the four key points raised by the Committee; namely the acceptance of the Finch Group Report, the costs of Article Processing Charges (APCs) and the level of ‘gold’ open access uptake in the rest of the world. 3. The RAS is concerned about the implementation of the Finch recommendations by Research Councils UK (RCUK). The resulting guidelines endorse the ‘gold’ model for Open Access publishing, but do not give a clear policy steer on the way in which researchers in higher education institutions will be able to access APCs. Furthermore, there is no guidance on how research groups should handle international collaborations, in particular where a UK researcher is not the lead author on a paper. 4. The Society has additional concerns about the cost of APCs. For the most active research groups and for most journals, these are likely to be significantly higher than their current institutional subscription. 5. We also urge MPs to investigate the issue of international competitiveness further. It appears that no other nations (including other EU members, China, Japan and the United States) have so far adopted the Open Access model being implemented in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Nurse Review of Research Councils Response by the Wellcome Trust - April 2015 Key Points
    Wellcome Trust CONSULTATION RESPONSE Nurse Review of Research Councils Response by the Wellcome Trust - April 2015 Key points The UK is renowned for its research excellence and much of this can be attributed to the Research Councils and the dual support system. The Councils effectively champion their separate disciplines. However, we do not think that they collaborate successfully to support interdisciplinary research that addresses major scientific or social challenges. One way to address this could be reconfiguring Research Councils UK (RCUK) so it becomes a true umbrella body, with sufficient authority and budget to enable it to fund and coordinate cross-cutting challenges, and provide oversight and management of national, international and multi-disciplinary facilities. There is a role for both response-mode and more targeted funding in the science portfolio. The Government has a key role in setting strategic priorities, but this should be done transparently and with input from expert advisers. Final funding decisions must be based on excellence. The Research Councils must better support and incentivise industry collaborations and entrepreneurship to promote translation and innovation. Introduction 1. The Wellcome Trust is a global charitable foundation dedicated to improving health. In 2015, we will invest around £750 million in biomedical research and the medical humanities — a figure that we plan to increase over the next five years. Our breadth of support includes public engagement, education and the application of research, and the majority of our funding is currently spent in the UK as a direct result of both the excellence of the research base and the Government’s commitment to science.
    [Show full text]
  • Setting up UK Research & Innovation
    House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Setting up UK Research & Innovation Eighth Report of Session 2016–17 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 7 December 2016 HC 671 Published on 13 December 2016 by authority of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science and associated public bodies. Current membership Stephen Metcalfe MP (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Chair) Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods MP (Labour, City of Durham) Victoria Borwick MP (Conservative, Kensington) Stella Creasy MP (Labour (Co-op), Walthamstow) Jim Dowd MP (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge) Chris Green MP (Conservative, Bolton West) Dr Tania Mathias MP (Conservative, Twickenham) Carol Monaghan MP (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North West) Graham Stringer MP (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Derek Thomas MP (Conservative, St Ives) Matt Warman MP (Conservative, Boston and Skegness) The following were also members of the committee during the parliament: Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) (Chair of the Committee until 19 July 2016) Liz McInnes MP (Labour, Heywood and Middleton) Valerie Vaz MP (Labour, Walsall South) Daniel Zeichner MP (Labour, Cambridge) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/science and in print by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • PIONEERING a DIGITAL FUTURE “The Web, As I Envisaged It, Has Not Been Seen Yet
    DIGITAL ECONOMY DIGITAL PIONEERING A DIGITAL FUTURE Research Councils UK Digital Economy Programme PIONEERING A DIGITAL FUTURE “The Web, as I envisaged it, has not been seen yet. The future is still so much bigger than the past.” SIR TIM BERNERS-LEE, MIT £120m Investment between 2008–11 Digital technologies are transforming business, government £29bn and society. Research is vital in making sure they have the best estimated size of UK ICT possible impact for everyone. sector by 2012 The Research Councils UK (RCUK) New economic models Digital Economy Programme is supporting The economy is becoming increasingly global research to understand how the novel and borderless. As new companies and 3m design and use of digital technologies can individuals use digital technologies to innovate, jobs in the UK creative contribute to a innovative, healthy economy the market can change rapidly. New business industries and ICT sectors and inclusive society. models will be created to adapt and take advantage of the changing environment. Opportunities Sustainable society £1.77bn Digital technologies offer huge potential for In the sustainable societies of the future, people potential savings by providing providing efficient and easy to access public will be able to make informed choices. Improved all public services online services. They can connect people in rural areas, delivery of information and services will foster enable remote access to healthcare, build social changes in behaviour to minimise the negative inclusion, and help solve our energy crisis. It has impact of our activities. been estimated that if everyone was connected the Treasury would make overnight savings 10m 1 people in the UK have of £1.77bn.
    [Show full text]
  • Case for the Creation of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)
    CASE FOR THE CREATION OF UK RESEARCH AND INNOVATION A new public body in place of the seven Research Councils, Innovate UK, and the research and knowledge exchange functions of the Higher Education Funding Council for England JUNE 2016 Case for the creation of UK Research and Innovation Contents 1. Summary ................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Strategic Context ...................................................................................................................... 6 3. Aims and Outcomes ............................................................................................................... 11 4. Consideration of Options ....................................................................................................... 13 5. Appraisal of preferred option ................................................................................................. 21 6. Transitional Arrangements ..................................................................................................... 25 7. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 26 Annex A – Structure and Governance of UK Research and Innovation .................................. 27 2 Case for the creation of UK Research and Innovation 1. Summary 1. The UK research and innovation systems are world-leading. The existing landscape and the bodies within it have evolved over
    [Show full text]
  • Where to Keep Research Data DCC Checklist for Evaluating Data Repositories Angus Whyte (DCC)
    A Digital Curation Centre ‘working level’ guide Where to keep research data DCC Checklist for Evaluating Data Repositories Angus Whyte (DCC) Please cite as: Whyte, A. (2015). ‘Where to keep research data: DCC checklist for evaluating data repositories’ v.1 Edinburgh: Digital Curation Centre. Available online: www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/how-guides Digital Curation Centre, 2015 Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Preface Fold-outs are quick start guides for researchers, What is the Digital Curation summarising good practice in relation to a specific Centre? data management topic. The Digital Curation Centre (DCC) is a world- Case studies describe how some organisations leading centre of expertise in digital information develop and deliver curation. They aim to curation. complement a How-to Guide or Checklist, and illustrate practical challenges and lessons learnt. Our primary aims are: Examples are shorter and offer ‘who, what, where, • Build research organisations’ capacity, how, when’ summaries of approaches to RDM capability and skills in managing data service delivery. • Support knowledge exchange and Catalogues offer half page entries profiling key development of good practice in digital resources in RDM. These include the Tools and curation Services Catalogue, and Disciplinary Metadata Directory. What guidance publications does DCC produce, and for what How can I reuse the content of audiences? this publication? We aim to help a broad audience including research All our content is licensed under Creative Commons support, library and IT service staff, as well as data CC-BY. If you do adapt or modify our content we producers.
    [Show full text]
  • China Science and Technology Newsletter
    CHINA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NEWSLETTER Department of International Cooperation No.09 Ministry of Science and Technology(MOST), P.R.China May 15 2016 News Updates - International S&T Cooperation 1st Inter-agency Meeting on China-ROK Innovation Park Held in Beijing Vice Minister Yin Meets Ambassador Robert Holleyman Director General of International Cooperation Jin Xiaoming Meets Vice Chancellor of Nottingham University 1st Workshop on China-Ontario Young Scientists Exchange Program Held Science Popularization over 12th Five Years Benchmarks of Science Literacy Issued National Science Week 2016 Held Successfully In Retrospect: Progress of Science Popularization during 12th Five-Year Plan Period News Updates - International S&T Cooperation 1st Inter-agency Meeting on China-ROK Innovation Park Held in Beijing The first session of China’s inter-agency meeting on was held in Beijing on April 29th 2016. The meeting the China-ROK Innovation and Entrepreneurship Park reviewed progress so far, discussed relevant matters and Monthly-Editorial Board:54,Sanlihe Road Beijing 10045,china Contact: Liu Bin E-mail:[email protected] [email protected] http://www.cistc.gov.cn 1 policy measures, and made arrangements for key areas in put forward three requirements. First, it is important to the upcoming work. better understand the overall interest and recognize the Science Minister Wan Gang conveyed messages from importance of the project. Second, efforts should be made Premier Li Keqiang and other leaders of the State Council to study on policy measures and initiative proposals so before elaborated on the organization and rules of work as to provide momentum for the project.
    [Show full text]
  • The Foundation for Science and Technology Page 1 DEBATE
    DEBATE SUMMARY Bringing science to the heart of government: the Nurse Review of the Research Councils Held at The Royal Society on 12 th January, 2016. The Foundation is grateful to the Association for Innovation, Research and Technology Organisations (AIRTO), the BRE Group, The ERA Foundation and the National Physical Laboratory for supporting this debate. The hash tag for this debate is #fstnurse . Audio files of the speeches are on www.foundation.org.uk . Chair: The Earl of Selborne GBE FRS Chairman, The Foundation for Science and Technology Speakers: Sir Paul Nurse FRS FMedSci HonFREng Chair of the Nurse Review and Director, The Francis Crick Institute Professor Philip Nelson FREng Chair, RCUK Executive Group and Chief Executive, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Gareth Davies Director General, Business & Science, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Panellist: Professor Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell DBE FRS FRSE FRAS FInstP President, The Royal Society of Edinburgh SIR PAUL NURSE said that his review had been economic, technological, social and environmental the product of a positive process of consultation issues of the day. and engagement. This included close working with the Research Council themselves -with He had been at pains to emphasise that the support from an excellent Advisory Group covering Research Councils had done well for many years, the full breadth of the research agenda, a were highly respected across the world and had Reference Group which had explored specific made significant contributions to knowledge and questions and provided invaluable international the economic and social good. We were, expertise, and a call for evidence to which some therefore, building from a high base.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 60, I'lum6eit , JAN /Feb Me
    OREGON GEOLOGY published by the Oregon Deportment of Geology and Mineral Industries OREGON GEOLOGY Barnett appointed to OOGAMI Governing Board --VOlUME 60, i'lUM6EIt , JAN /fEB Me... N. Barnett at Pa1Iond ho.I bMn oppoinl8d b)' c:.o... .... 10M 16tz1lo ... ."d ....1.rnMI by !he Or."", ...... ... .. -~....... " "" _..-.-- _-_._--_ - .. .. '--. S,n." lor • fOUl-year Ie!m be""'" OKombel " _"'.eI ,"7, 0$ c.c:-mIn, 1\oaI,j ".,..,w.., of ,110 Ole,,,,, -~ o.pll"",nt aI c.doC one! Mlnaol Induwles --- , ~. - (OOCoAMl) Bornoort ."a: .." John W. S\olJl~ '" _.- -_-- ..... Pa1Iond • .me....-..d two f""' - ~ _.., Ihe Go.<- --. _u_- --~- """"...... d ----______- - .. ~ ... _. ... _.>m. ......... ,... ... ........ - ---- _ 1oIoM.,.,- ... _ ,, -""'"'+ .......,0>, ... '"___ cc,.", .. _ ...' , """.~ ""1>'11 .n-, - ~- ,...,...-..... .. ,_.c:.- .......... ---__ (0'1" ''''''''_lM'I . ,. ,, ~ -,--~. " ~ -., W»o-~ _IM',_->cuo' -- .... I"",. ..... _ "'" ....... ....._ _-..., r-__.. , , ':--,--.. ,1>._ .- ..._ _.. ........ _ -...m.I>W __ .n-".., .... _"'Jr--. -",--....,-- ..._., , AriHoI It. "tftOft ,...I"-_.. ,_..,. ___ u , _ , -, ... ..... .. "' .... .............. .......... BlIlIOn Is tho M.".,. 01 1"- Humon ~ - ""-__",-_._- . ,,,._.nn_ .. _. _ __ ot _- •.. ...... OpeI.lioN 00tp0." ......1 01 PortIa..a General E~1c Company (PGEJ. $110 ".. bftn wo<ldn, .mt. P'GE oIr>e. '918. mostly ... ........,..,. /v..ctloro. ",,j _.'_'_._-""'_--~"'----"--.""-"--"'"_._- ___ ".... _ _ ' F........ p''"''''''"''"''tIy ... II>e .." af ........., RQoourcn. Silo _ .... _.. __ .. _R__ .. _• ott.odod "-PP-.... ~ one! " .....Iod hom AbiIono Chnstian 1..Wvoni1y 11\ .... Shoo 10 rrwrI.cI 0IId : -_ .. __ .. ..... two -.,..I ~... She Is .., Itw M,->, -----""'---........ .. .-_ -- CcundI 01 INS. alia, Asmy Gt-v..... .. and""- --,.-_............ -_--- 11\ IN """" ".ObtIy 01 r.
    [Show full text]