natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
- Når man står midt i en økonomisk krise og arbejdsløsheden er omfattende blandt ikke mindst de unge europæere, kan det være svært at fokusere på horisonten, men man er nødt til at huske på, at det her ikke bare handler om forskning, men om at skabe arbejdspladser til de selvsamme unge i morgendagens Europa, siger den danske minister for forskning, innovation og videregående uddannelser, Morten Østergaard, der under det danske EU-formandskab leder forhandlingerne om Horizon 2020.
- Faced with economic crisis and extensive unemployment, especially among young Europeans, it can be difficult to focus on the horizon, but we must remember than this programme is not only a matter of research and innovation, but about creating future jobs for those same young people, says Danish Minister for Science, Innovation and Higher Education Morten Østergaard, who is leading negotiations on Horizon 2020 during the Danish EU Presidency.
Og han erklærer sig meget tilfreds med udbyttet af de to dage i Bella Centeret i København:
And he states that he is very satisfied with the results of the two days in the Bella Center in Copenhagen.
- Det har været en meget lovende begyndelse på det, der gerne skal ende i enighed om ikke bare verdens største, men også verdens stærkeste forskningsprogram.
- These days have been a fruitful and promising beginning to the makings of what will not only be the world's largest, but also strongest research programme.
Mit indtryk er, at der generelt er bred enighed om, at kommissæren har leveret et flot og ambitiøst udspil, og at vejen ud af både denne og fremtidige kriser i Europa er brolagt med forskning og innovation, siger han.
I get the impression that there is strong support for the ambitious programme and that the way out of European crises is paved with research and innovation, he says.
- Vi skal finde en balance og et resultat, som alle lande kan stå bag, uden at vi går på kompromis med ambitionerne om at fremme forskning af allerhøjeste kvalitet.
- We must find a balance and result that every country can support without compromising the demand for excellence in research.
- Jeg håber, ministrene vil fortsætte i samme, konstruktive ånd, som de har udvist de seneste dage, og det er nødvendigt med stor politisk bevågenhed, hvis det skal lykkes, siger Morten Østergaard.
One of Europe's greatest challenges is not the quality of the research, but transforming it into innovation and jobs, says Morten Østergaard.
Derudover kommissæren for forskning og innovation Máire Geoghegan-Quinn og kommissæren for regional udvikling Johannes Hahn.
Furthermore, the Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, and the Commissioner for Regional Policy, Johannes Hahn.
DANMARKS FORSKNINGSPOLITISKE RÅD
DANISH COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH POLICY
Et værktøj til vurdering af forskningens kvalitet og relevans
A tool for assessing research quality and relevance
Forskningspolitiske prioriteringer bør foretages på et gennemskueligt og veldokumenteret grundlag.
Research policy prioritisations should be conducted on a transparent and welldocumented foundation.
Det er derfor nødvendigt at have et fælles værktøj til synliggørelse af forskningens kvalitet og relevans.
This requires a common tool for rendering visible the quality and relevance of research.
Danmarks Forskningspolitiske Råd har gennem arbejdet med identiﬁcering af kernefelter i dansk forskning udviklet og afprøvet et værktøj til vurdering af dansk forsknings kvalitet og relevans ved hjælp af internationalt sammenlignelige kriterier.
During its work to identify core areas in Danish research, the Danish Council for Research Policy has developed and tested a tool for assessing the quality and relevance of Danish research based on internationally comparable criteria.
På baggrund af erfaringerne fra kernefeltprojektet beskriver Rådet nedenfor hovedelementerne i et værktøj for dokumentation og sammenligning af forskningskvalitet og -relevans på tværs af forskningsområder og institutioner, og til anvendelse ved tildeling af såvel institutionernes basismidler som konkurrencemidler.
Based on experience from the core area project, the Council describes in the following the main components of a tool for documenting and comparing research quality and relevance across research areas and institutions, and for use in connection with allocating both basic funding and competitive funding to institutions.
Årsrapport 2005 - Identiﬁkation af kernefelter i dansk forskning.
Annual report 2005 - Identiﬁcation of core areas in Danish research.
Værktøjet er udformet, så det kan anvendes forskellige steder i forskningssystemet dvs. både i vurderingen og prioriteringen af basis- og konkurrencemidler - og på forskellige niveauer (i forhold til den enkelte forsker, forskergruppe, afdeling, institut, fakultet eller institution).
The tool is designed to be applicable in a variety of areas within the research system, i.e. for assessment and prioritisation of basic and competitive funding, and at different levels (the individual researcher, research team, department, institute, faculty or institution).
Institutledere, dekaner og rektorer kan således anvende værktøjet i den institutionsinterne allokering af midler, ligesom forskningsrådene vil kunne have udbytte af metoden.
Heads of institutes, deans and rectors can, thus, employ the tool in connection with intrainstitutional allocations just as the Danish research councils would beneﬁt from employing the method.
I et lidt større perspektiv kan værktøjet anvendes for at skabe klare og gennemskuelige kriterier i forbindelse med regeringens initiativer som fx. en ny model for konkurrence mellem universiteter, en ny model for kvalitetsbaseret fordeling af basismidler og et kvalitetsbarometer.
In a wider perspective, the tool can be used to establish clear and transparent criteria in connection with the Danish Government's initiatives, such as a new model for competition among universities, a new model for quality-based distribution of basic funding and a quality barometer.
Rådet anbefaler, at den fælles reference for kvalitets- og relevansvurdering:
The Council recommends that the common reference for quality and relevance assessment should:
• bygger på en selvevaluering af den berørte forskningsenhed,
• be based on self-evaluation by the research unit in question
• består af seks indikatorer - ﬁre for kvalitet (1-4) og to for relevans (5-6):
• comprise six indicators - four for quality (1-4) and two for relevance (5-6):
Formaliseret internationalt forskningssamarbejde 5.
Formalised international research collaborations 5.
• udtrykkes graﬁsk i et diagram, jf. ﬁgur 1,
• be expressed graphically in a diagram, see Figure 1
• og er offentlig tilgængelig.
• and be publicly accessible.
Figur 1 Forskningsmæssig kvalitet og relevans
Figure 1 Research-related quality and relevance
Forskningskvalitet beskriver det samlede niveau for, hvor godt et forskningsområde er.
Research quality describes the combined level for how good a research area is.
Citationer speciﬁceret i forhold til en tidsperiode: Gennemsnitlige antal citationer pr. publikation pr. år i relation til sammenlignelige nationale og internationale forskningsområder inden for de seneste fem år.
• Citations: Citations are speciﬁed in terms of a speciﬁc time frame: Average number of citations per publication p.a. in relation to comparable national and international research areas within the last ﬁve years.
Forskningsrelevans beskriver det samlede niveau for forskningens betydning for det omgivende samfund.
Research relevance describes the combined level of societal signiﬁcance of the research.
Forskningens relevans kan beskrives ved to indikatorer:
Research relevance can be described using two indicators:
En åben, offentlig tilgængelig selvevaluering baseret på forudbestemte indikatorer er et grundlæggende element for vurdering af forskningskvalitet og -relevans.
An open, publicly accessible self-evaluation based on predeﬁned indicators is a fundamental part of assessing research quality and relevance.
De berørte forskningsenheder angiver sig selv på de seks indikatorer.
The research units in question provide information about themselves on the six indicators.
Denne selvangivelse viser forskningsenhedens egen vurdering af dens placering på den enkelte indikator i forhold til sammenlignelige nationale og internationale enheder.
This selfevaluation shows the research unit's own assessment of its placement within the individual indicators in relation to comparable national and international units.
Rådet forudsætter, at alle selvevalueringer offentliggøres - typisk på engelsk.
The Council requires that all self-evaluations be published - typically in English.
Dette vil udsætte forskningsenheden for kritisk vurdering fra såvel forskersamfundet som fra andre interessenter i samfunds- og erhvervsliv.
This will subject the research unit to critical evaluation from the research community as well as from other interested parties in the business community and society as a whole.
Selvevalueringer bør kombineres og valideres med eksterne - nationale såvel som internationale - uafhængige evalueringer.
Self-evaluations should be combined with and validated by external - national as well as international - independent evaluations.
En sådan periodisk ekstern evaluering bør omfatte en kritisk vurdering af selvevalueringen.
Such periodic external evaluations should include critical evaluations of the unit's self-evaluation.
Rådet anbefaler, at hver indikator gradueres i forhold til fem niveauer jf. Tabel 1 (kvalitetsindikatorerne) og Tabel 2 (relevansindikatorerne).
The Council recommends that each indicator be placed on a scale of ﬁve levels, see Table 1 (quality indicators) and Table 2 (relevance indicators).
Tabel 1 Oversigt over ﬁre graduerede kvalitetsindikatorer Kvalitetsindikatorer
Table 1 Overview of four scaled quality indicators Quality indicators
På højeste internationale niveau.
At highest international level
Gennemsnitlige nationale niveau.
Average national level
Formaliseret internationalt samarbejde med de førende internationale miljøer.
Formalised international collaborations with leading international environments
* Såvel kvantitet som kvalitet (tidsskriftets impact factor) indgår i vurderingen
* Both quantity and quality (impact factor of a journal) are included in the assessment
Tabel 2 Oversigt over to graduerede relevansindikatorer Relevansindikatorer
Table 2 Overview of two scaled relevance indicators Relevance indicators
Nedenstående samt: · Forskningsenheden modtager midler fra private virksomheder svarende til det gennemsnitlige niveau for forskningsfeltet.
The following plus: · Research unit receives funding from private sector equalling the average level for the research area
For de forskningsområder, der ikke har tilgang til internationalt sammenlignelige data, kan vurderingen begrundes i andre former for opgørelser.
For the research areas that do not have access to international comparable data, the assessment can be based on other types of ﬁgures.
Det er muligt at summere tallene til to opgørelser - én sum for kvalitet (max 20 points) og én sum for relevans (max 10 points).
It is possible to combine the ﬁgures from two statements - one sum for quality (max. 20 points) and one sum for relevance (max. 10 points).
De valgte indikatorer er i sagens natur overvejende baseret på historiske data.
The chosen indicators are, of course, primarily based on historical data.
Under to indikatorer - samfundsmæssig og erhvervsmæssig betydning - er der mulighed for at beskrive en potentiel eller forventelig udvikling inden for feltets område.
Under two indicatorssocietal and business-related signiﬁcance - it is possible to describe potential or expected developments within the focus area in question.
Dette vil dog ofte ikke kunne dokumenteres, men der vil i nogle tilfælde kunne henvises til teknologiske fremsyn eller tilsvarende eksterne/uafhængige analyser mv., der beskriver mulige udviklingsmæssige effekter/gevinster.
Although it will generally not be possible to document them, it will be possible, in some cases, to refer to technological foresight studies or similar external/independent analyses, etc. that describe possible developmental effects/gains.
Vurdering af spirende forskningsområders potentiale er et særligt ansvar først og fremmest for institutionsledelserne og for Det Frie Forskningsråd.
The assessment of the potential of emerging research areas is especially the responsibility of the managing bodies of institutions and of the Danish Councils for Independent Research.
Anvendes metodikken i konkurrencestrengen er det oplagt, at tværfaglige og tværinstitutionelle områder vil kunne prioriteres.
If this method is employed in connection with research funding awarded in open competition, then it would be logical to give interdisciplinary and crossinstitutional areas higher priority.
I udviklingen af en ny model for fordeling af universiteternes basismidler er det derimod en præmis, at universiteterne hver især beskriver kvalitet og relevans af institutionernes forskning.
In connection with the development of a new model for distributing the Danish universities' basic funding, however, the universities must each describe the quality and relevance of their institutions' research.
Direktør Bruno Hansen (formand)
Bruno Hansen, Director (Chairman)
Niels Bohr Institutet
University of Copenhagen
Adm.direktør Lars Goldschmidt Foreningen af Rådgivende Ingeniører
Lars Goldschmidt, Managing Director Danish Association of Consulting Engineers - FRI
Institut for Antropologi
Institute of Anthropology
Klinisk Fysiologi, Nuklearmedicin og PET
Clinical Physiology and PET Centre
Afdeling for Husdyrsundhed, Velfærd og Ernæring
Department of Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Bestyrelsesformand Bent Claudi Lassen Danske Slagterier
Bent Claudi Lassen Chairman, Danish Bacon & Meat Council
Medlemmer af Danmarks Forskningspolitiske Råd
Members of the Danish Council for Research Policy
OM DANMARKS FORSKNINGSPOLITISKE RÅD
ABOUT THE DANISH COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH POLICY
Danmarks Forskningspolitiske Råd giver forskningspolitisk rådgivning til ministeren for videnskab, teknologi og udvikling.
The Danish Council for Research Policy advises the Minister for Science, Technology and Innovation on issues concerning research policy.
Endvidere kan Folketinget og enhver anden minister indhente rådgivning fra Rådet.
The Parliament and other ministers may also ask the Council's advice.
Rådgivningen sker efter anmod ning eller på eget initiativ.
Advice may be given upon request or on the Council's own initiative.
Rådets opgaver omfatter overordnet rådgivning om dansk og international forskningspolitik til gavn for samfundet, herunder rådgivning om:
The tasks of the Council include giving general advice on Danish and international research policy for the beneﬁ t of society including advice on:
• Rammebetingelser for forskning
• The framework of research
• Større nationale og internationale forskningsinitiativer
• Major national and international research initiatives
• Udviklingen i den nationale forskningsstrategi
• Development of national research strategies
• Danmarks rolle og placering i det internationale
• Denmark's role and position in international research cooperation
• Forskeruddannelse og forskerrekruttering
• Education and recruitment of researchers
Forsknings- og Innovationsstyrelsen, august 2008
Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation August 2008
Af Poul Lodberg, formand for Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed (UVVU)
By Poul Lodberg, Chairman of the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD)
SIDE 7: KAPITEL 1 SAGER BEHANDLET I 2007
PAGE 7: CHAPTER 1 CASES CONSIDERED IN 2007
Af Cecilie Dickmeiss, sekretariatet for UVVU
By Cecilie Dickmeiss, secretariat of DCSD
Af dr. Alexis-Michel Mugabushaka, Science Officer, Corporate Science Policy, European Science Foundation, France
By Dr Alexis-Michel Mugabushaka, Science Officer, Corporate Science Policy, European Science Foundation (France)
Uddrag af lov om forskningsrådgivning (lovbekendtgørelse nr. 658 af 19. juni 2007)
Extracts from the Danish Act on the Research Advisory System etc. (Act No. 658 of 19 June 2007)
Bekendtgørelse nr. 668 af 28. juni 2005 om Udvalgene vedrørende
Executive Order No. 668 of 28 June 2005 on the Danish
Medlemmer og suppleanter i Udvalgene vedrørende
Members and alternates of the Danish Committees on
Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed (UVVU) afgiver hermed sin årsberetning for 2007.
The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) herewith submit their Annual Report for 2007.
I løbet af 2007 blev der i alt indbragt 13 sager for UVVU.
During 2007 a total of 13 cases were brought before DCSD.
Af bekendtgørelse nr. 668 af 28. juni 2005 om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed fremgår hvilke sager, UVVU kan behandle1).
Danish Executive Order No. 668 of 28 June 2005 on the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty sets out which cases DCSD can consider1).
Sagerne skal vedrøre videnskabelige produkter.
e cases must relate to scientific products.
UVVU kan ikke behandle sager, der vedrører videnskabelige teoriers holdbarhed eller sandhed eller sager, der vedrører forskningskvaliteten af et videnskabeligt produkt.
DCSD cannot consider cases relating to the tenability or truth of scientific theories, or cases relating to the research quality of a scientific product.
Sager, som indbringes for UVVU, må afvises i det omfang, de ikke opfylder bekendtgørelsens betingelser.
Cases brought before DCSD must be rejected insofar as they do not satisfy the conditions in the Executive Order.
Endelig vedrørte nogle indbragte klager videnskabelige teoriers holdbarhed, sandhed eller forskningskvalitet, hvilket UVVU ikke har kompetence til at bedømme.
Finally, some complaints submitted involved the tenability, truth or research quality of scientific theories, which DCSD does not have the authority to judge.
I en enkelt sag blev klagen trukket tilbage af klager3).
In a single case the complaint was withdrawn by the complainant3).
UVVU bad klager om nærmere at præcisere tilbagetrækningen.
DCSD asked the complainant to give more detailed reasons for its withdrawal.
UVVU fandt ikke, at samfundsmæssige årsager kunne begrunde en fortsat behandling af sagen.
DCSD did not find that social causes could warrant continued consideration of the case.
1) Bekendtgørelse nr. 668 af 28. juni 2005 om Udvalgene vedrørende
1) Danish Executive Order No. 668 of 28 June 2005 on the Danish
Videnskabelig Uredelighed er optrykt som bilag til årsberetningen.
Committees on Scientific Dishonesty has been reprinted as an appendix
Afsluttede sager I 2007
Completed cases in 2007
Sagen blev behandlet i Udvalget vedrørende videnskabelig uredelighed for natur-, teknologi- og produktionsvidenskabelig forskning (UNTPF).
e case was considered on the Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for Research in Natural, Technological and Production Science (UNTPF).
I september 2007 trak klager pludseligt sin klage tilbage.
In September 2007 the complainant suddenly retracted his complaint.
I henhold til bekendtgørelse nr. 668 af 28. juni 2005 § 4, stk.
In accordance with Danish Executive Order No. 668 of 28 June 2005, Section 4, subs.
2, kan UVVU i begrænset omfang optage sager af egen drift, hvis sagen er af samfundsmæssig interesse eller af betydning for menneskers eller dyrs sundhed, og hvor der foreligger en begrundet formodning for videnskabelig uredelighed.
2, DCSD can take up cases of its own accord to a limited extent if the case is of social interest or of importance to human or animal health, and where there is justified assumption of scientific dishonesty.
Tilbagetrækningsbegæringen blev derpå taget til efterretning, og sagen blev henlagt.
e request for withdrawal was therefore taken under advisement and the case shelved.
I marts 2006 rettede en navngiven person på vegne af en virksomhed henvendelse til UVVU med en klage, som omfattede tre selvstændige klager med indbyrdes sammenhæng.
In March 2006, on behalf of a company, a named person contacted DCSD with a complaint, which included three independent, interconnected complaints.
Klagerne rettede sig mod tre forskellige artikler, som beskrev et bestemt lægemiddel:
e complaints took issue with three different articles describing a particular medicinal product:
1) Det var klagers opfattelse, at to forskere havde handlet videnskabeligt uredeligt i udformningen af en konklusion i en artikel, som de to forskere havde publiceret i et fagligt tidsskrift.
1) It was the complainant's view that two researchers had acted in a scientifically dishonest way in formulating a conclusion to an article which the two researchers had published in a specialist journal.
Artiklen konkluderede, at lægemidlet, som var hyppigt anvendt, forårsagede en bestemt type skade, som kan optræde i forbindelse med en bestemt type behandling.
e article concluded that the drug, which had been in common use, caused a particular type of damage that can occur in connection with a particular type of treatment.
UVVU fandt, at artiklen var et videnskabeligt produkt og derfor omfattet af UVVU's kompetence.
DCSD found that the article was a scientific product, and therefore covered by DCSD's authority.
Efter UVVU's opfattelse underbyggede den i artiklen fremlagte dokumentation ikke den dragne videnskabelige konklusion.
In DCSD's view, the documentation presented in the article did not support the scientific conclusion drawn.
2) Klager gjorde endvidere gældende, at en forsker i sin egenskab af formand for en dansk forening efter klagers opfattelse havde handlet videnskabeligt uredeligt ved i en årsberetning at have konkluderet, at lægemidlet var toksisk, og anvendelsen af lægemidlet burde undgås i forbindelse med en nærmere angiven behandling.
2) e complainant further asserted that a researcher, in his capacity of chairman of a Danish association, had, in the complainant's opinion, acted in a scientifically dishonest way by having concluded in an annual report that the drug was toxic and use of the drug should be avoided in connection with a particular therapy that was detailed.
3) Klager gjorde yderligere gældende, at forskeren efter klagers opfattelse havde handlet videnskabeligt uredeligt ved i en artikel i en udgave af et foreningstidsskrift at konkludere, at en bestemt type skade, der kan optræde i forbindelse med en bestemt type behandling, opfattedes som værende betinget af det nærmere angivne lægemiddel.
3) e complainant further asserted that, in the complainant's opinion, the same researcher had acted in a scientifically dishonest way by concluding in an article in an issue of an association magazine that a particular type of damage that can occur in connection with a particular type of treatment was perceived as being contingent on the drug specifically referred to.
UVVU fandt i de to sidstnævnte forhold ikke, at konklusionerne i årsberetningen eller artiklen i foreningstidsskriftet kunne betragtes som videnskabelige produkter.
On the latter two counts, DCSD did not feel that the conclusions in the annual report or the article in the association magazine could be regarded as scientific products.
UVVU fandt dermed, at publikationerne ikke var omfattet af UVVU's kompetence, jf. bekendtgørelsen § 1, stk.
e Committee thus found that the publications were not under DCSD's jurisdiction, cf. Section 1, subs.
I juni 2006 modtog UVVU en henvendelse fra en forsker, som ønskede
In June 2006 DCSD was approached by a researcher who wished to be
at blive renset for påstande om videnskabelig uredelighed, som et bedømmelsesudvalg havde fremsat i forbindelse med bedømmelsen af hans ph.d.-afhandling.
cleared of allegations of scientific dishonesty which an adjudication committee had put forward in connection with its assessment of his PhD thesis.
Sagen blev behandlet i Udvalget vedrørende videnskabelig uredelighed for kultur- og samfundsvidenskabelig forskning (UKSF).
e case was considered on the Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for Research in Cultural and Social Science (UKSF).
Bedømmelsesudvalget havde vurderet, at der var foretaget plagiering fra en nærmere angivet artikel.
e adjudication committee had deemed that there had been plagiarization from an article specified.