natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Endvidere fandt flertallet, at instituttets oplysninger om at projektet blev justeret undervejs, måtte lægges til grund.
In addition, the majority found that the institution's disclosure about the project having been adjusted along the way had to be taken as a basis.
Slutteligt fandt flertallet, at karakteriseringen af rapporten som en udredningsopgave blev understøttet af rapportens forord.
Finally, the majority found that the preface to the report lent credence to its characterization as a fact-finding assignment.
Den danske tidsskriftredaktør oplyste, at indklagede havde underskrevet en erklæring om, at artiklen var hendes eget arbejde.
e Danish journal editor stated that the Defendant had signed a declaration saying that the article was her own work.
Redaktøren oplyste endvidere, at han havde kontaktet den ene af de to udenlandske forfattere.
e editor went on to state that he had contacted one of the two foreign authors.
Forfatteren forklarede, at han var bekendt med, at den indklagede person var i færd med at skrive en oversigtsartikel, men han var ikke blevet oplyst om, at hun havde oversat artiklen til dansk.
e author explained that he was aware that the Defendant was in the process of writing a review article, but he had not been told that she had translated the article into Danish
Sagen blev behandlet af UVVUs udvalg for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning (USF).
e case was considered by DCSD's Committee for Health and Medical Science (USF).
Det fremgik endvidere af forfattererklæringen, at indklagede skulle anføre referencen, såfremt arbejdet var en sekundærpublikation af et allerede offentliggjort arbejde.
It further emerged from the authors' declaration that the Defendant was supposed to cite the reference if the work was a secondary publication of a work already published.
Der var ikke anført reference på erklæringen.
No reference was cited on the declaration.
Sag nr. 2 i ÅB 2006 (Sag nr. 9 i ÅB 2005)
Case No. 2 in the 2006 AR (Case No. 9 in the 2005 AR)
Forskeren oplyste, at hun under sin ansættelse på et dansk finansieret projekt i udlandet fra 2000-2002 havde været vidne til adskillige tilfælde af videnskabelig uredelighed.
stated that during her appointment on a Danish-financed project abroad from 2000 to 2002 she had been witness to various instances of scientific dishonesty.
Hun havde påtalt tilfældene over for de projektansvarlige, hvorefter hun var blevet afskediget.
She had complained about these instances to the project officers in charge, whereupon she had been dismissed.
Sagen blev behandlet i UVVUs udvalg for natur-, teknologi og naturvidenskabelig forskning (UNTPF).
e case was considered by DCSD's Committee on Research in Natural, Technological and Production Science (UNTPF).
Efter en omfattende og langvarig høringsproces kunne udvalget konstatere, at der ikke var enighed mellem parterne om sagens faktiske forhold og omstændighederne i øvrigt.
After a comprehensive and protracted hearing process, the Committee was able to ascertain a lack of consensus between the parties over the actual facts of the case and about the circumstances in general.
Udvalget udtalte i maj 2006, at sagens kompleksitet sammenholdt med det faktum, at sagen vedrørte begivenheder, der var fundet sted i udlandet flere år tidligere, medførte, at en tilbundsgående undersøgelse af sagen ville være for omfattende og ressourcekrævende i forhold til sagens betydning.
e Committee stated in May 2006 that the complexity of the case, compared with the fact that the case concerned events that had taken place abroad several years previously, meant that an in-depth investigation of the case would be too far-reaching and resource-consuming in relation to the importance of the case.
Sagen blev derfor afvist i medfør af bekendtgørelsens § 4, stk.
e case was therefore dismissed in pursuance of Section 4, subs.
I september 2005 rettede en person henvendelse til UVVU og oplyste,
In September 2005 a person contacted DCSD with information that
at to navngivne personer havde handlet videnskabeligt uredeligt i to publikationer i deres beskrivelse af sygdommen fibromyalgi.
two named individuals had acted in a scientifically dishonest fashion in two publications in their description of the disease fibromyalgia.
Sagen blev behandlet i Udvalget for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning (USF).
e case was considered by the Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for Research in Health and Medical Science (USF).
Udvalget fandt ikke anledning til at tage sagen op af egen drift i medfør af bekendtgørelsens § 1, stk.
e Committee did not find reason to take up the case of its own accord pursuant to Section 1, subs.
2, idet de to genstande for klagen ikke kunne betragtes som forskning.
2 of the Executive Order, as the two objects of the complaint could not be regarded as research.
Indholdet af første indklagedes publikation havde karakter af en debatbog.
e contents of the first defendant's publication took the nature of a debate book.
Den havde ikke været udsat for peer review eller lignende, der kunne indikere, at der var tale om forskning.
It had not been subjected to any peer or similar review that might indicate research was involved.
Første indklagede havde endvidere overfor udvalget tilkendegivet, at hendes udtalelser ikke var baseret på videnskabelige undersøgelser, men udelukkende havde karakter af debatindlæg.
Moreover, the first defendant had admitted to the Committee that her statements were not based on scientific studies but took the nature purely of a contribution to the debate.
Den anden indklagede var indbragt for udvalget, idet klager mente, at indklagede udviste videnskabelig uredelighed ved at diagnosticere og behandle patienter efter en nærmere betegnet model, samt ved at undervise andre læger efter modellen.
e second defendant has been brought before the Committee, as the Complainant felt that the Defendant displayed scientific dishonesty by diagnosing and treating patients in accordance with a specific model, and by instructing other doctors in accordance with that model.
I udvalget var der enighed om, at modellen var en anvisning på, hvordan man behandler en angiven patientgruppe.
In order to have any basis for taking a position on the case, the Committee considered it necessary for the specific model to be able to be regarded as a publication.
Udvalget afviste at behandle sagen i medfør af bekendtgørelsen § 4, stk.
e Committee declined to consider the case in pursuance of Section 4, subs.
3, nr. 1, jf. § 1, stk.
3, item 1, cf. Section 1, subs.
1, idet der ikke var tale om forskning fra nogen af de indklagedes side.
1 of the Executive Order, as no research was involved on the part of either defendant.
I september 2005 modtog UVVU en klage over forskellige forsknings
In September 2005 DCSD received a complaint about different
aktiviteter med tilknytning til et amt.
research activities connected with a Danish county authority.
Det var klagerens opfattelse, at forskningen havde til formål at få et naturområde udpeget som EU-habitatområde.
It was the Complainant's view that the purpose of the research was to have a natural area designated an EU habitat area.
Forskningen viste, at der levede en bestemt dyreart i det pågældende amt, hvilket efter klagerens opfattelse var videnskabelig uredeligt.
e research showed that a particular species of animal lived in the relevant county, which, in the Complainant's view, was scientifically dishonest.
Sagen blev behandlet i Udvalget for natur-, teknologi- og produktionsvidenskabelig forskning (UNTPF).
e case was considered by the Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for Research in Natural, Technological and Production Science (UNTPF).
Udvalget fandt ikke, at klager eller indklagede kunne anses som parter i forvaltningslovens forstand, idet der ikke forelå fornøden væsentlig og individuel interesse for sagens udfald.
e Committee did not find that the Complainant or the Defendant could be considered parties in the sense of the Danish Public Administration Act, as there was no evidence of the requisite essential and individual interest in the outcome of the case.
Klagers og instituttets interesse for dyrearten og forskningen i den, gav ikke tilstrækkeligt grundlag for partsstatus i forhold til de personer og publikationer, som klagen var rettet imod.
e Complainant's and the institution's interest in the species and in the research into it did not provide sufficient basis for party status in relation to the people and publications targeted by the complaint.
Udvalget afviste derfor sagen i medfør af bekendtgørelsens § 4, stk.
e Committee therefore dismissed the case pursuant to Section 4, subs.
I slutningen af december 2005 rettede en forsker henvendelse til UVVU
At the end of December 2005 a researcher approached DCSD with a
med henblik på at få sin sag genoptaget.
view to having his case reopened.
Sagen var tidligere blevet behandlet i Udvalget for samfundsvidenskabelig og humanistisk forskning.
e case had previously been heard on the Committee for Social Science and the Humanities (USHF).
I november 2004 havde UVVU modtaget en henvendelse fra klageren, i anledning af forslag til en artikel, som han havde sendt til chefredaktøren for en dansk avis.
In November 2004 DCSD had received an enquiry from the Complainant, on the grounds of a proposal for an article he had sent to the editor-in-chief of a Danish newspaper.
Redaktionen havde meddelt, at artiklen ikke ville blive publiceret i avisen, før sagen havde været prøvet for et bredere sagkyndigt udvalg.
e editorial section had notified him that the article would not be published in the newspaper until the case had been tried in front of a broader expert committee.
Sagen vedrørte påstået videnskabelig uredelighed i indholdet (oversættelser, citater) i en navngiven persons speciale samt specialevejlederens bedømmelse af det.
e case concerned alleged scientific dishonesty in the content (translations, quotations) of a named person's master's thesis and the thesis supervisor's assessment of the same.
I februar 2005 afviste udvalget at behandle klagen, idet det på forhånd måtte anses for usandsynligt, at der forelå videnskabelig uredelighed.
In February 2005 the Committee declined to consider the complaint, since it could only be deemed improbable a priori that there was any scientific dishonesty.
For så vidt angik klagen over specialevejlederen, fandt udvalget, at forholdet ikke var omfattet af UVVU's kompetence.
As regards the complaint about the thesis supervisor, the Committee found that the circumstances were not covered by DCSD's competence.
Klager anmodede i december 2005 UVVU om at genoptage behandlingen af sagen.
In December 2005 the Complainant asked DCSD to resume its treatment of the case.
Som støtte for anmodningen henviste klager nu til en ansøgning, indklagede med bilag i september 2005 havde indsendt til et af statens forskningsråd.
To support his request, the Complainant now referred to an application which the Defendant had submitted in September 2005, complete with appendices, to one of the state-funded Danish research councils.
Udvalget udtalte i april 2006 at den tidligere klage fra november 2004, betragtedes som afsluttet ved afgørelsen i februar 2005.
In April 2006 the Committee pronounced that the previous complaint from November 2004 was deemed to have been finalized in the form of the ruling given in February 2005.
Derfor betragtede UVVU klagerens henvendelse i december 2005 som en ny klage.
DCSD therefore regarded the Complainant's enquiry in December 2005 as a new complaint.
Udvalget fandt ikke, at klager kunne anses som part i sagen mod de to indklagede, jf. bekendtgørelsen § 4, stk.
e Committee did not find that the Complainant could be considered a party to the case against the two defendants, cf. Section 4, subs.
Udvalget fandt ikke, at der var tale om en sag vedrørende mulig videnskabelig uredelighed begået i forbindelse med forskning.
e Committee did not find that the case involved possible scientific dishonesty committed in a context of research.
Udvalget lagde vægt på, at det af det foreliggende materiale ikke fremgik, at den angiveligt urigtige titel var benyttet i forbindelse med indklagedes udarbejdelse af videnskabelige produkter.
e Committee emphasized that the material available did not show that the allegedly incorrect title had been used in connection with the Defendant's preparation of scientific products.
Der var derfor ikke tale om et forhold begået i forskning, hvorfor udvalget ikke kunne behandle sagen, jf. bekendtgørelsen § 1.
It was not, therefore, a question of a matter committed in research, for which reason the Committee was unable to consider the case, cf. Section 1 of the Executive Order.
Klagen blev derfor afvist.
e complaint was therefore rejected.
navngiven styrelse samt en navngiven ansat for videnskabelig uredelighed, idet han havde modtaget et afslag på støtte til et projekt.
and a named employee for scientific dishonesty, having received a rejection for support for a project.
I bekendtgørelsen § 2 defineres begrebet videnskabelig uredelighed.
Section 2 of the Executive Order defines the concept of scientific dishonesty.
Ved videnskabelig uredelighed forstås en forsætlig eller groft uagtsom adfærd i form af forfalskning, plagiering, fortielse eller lignende, der indebærer en utilbørlig vildledning om egen videnskabelige indsats og / eller videnskabelige resultater.
Scientific dishonesty is understood to mean intentional or grossly negligent conduct in the form of falsification, plagiarization, concealment, non-disclosure or suchlike, bringing about undue misrepresentation of one's own scientific efforts and/or scientific results.
I bestemmelsen opregnes en række eksempler på videnskabelig uredelighed.
e clause enumerates a number of examples of scientific dishonesty.
Det forhold, at en klager ikke modtager støtte til et projekt, er ikke et forhold, der hører ind under UVVU's kompetence.
e fact that a complainant does not receive support for a project is not a consideration that falls within DCSD's jurisdiction.
Klagen afvistes derfor.
e complaint was therefore rejected.
Sagen var oprindeligt indbragt for UVVU i august 2004 og
e case was originally brought before DCSD in August 2004 and
Klageren var mod sin vilje og uden forudgående mulighed for udtalelse blevet placeret som førsteforfatter til rapporterne, som blev offentliggjort efter, at klageren havde forladt stillingen.
Against his will and without any prior opportunity to state his case, the Complainant had been ranked as first author of the reports, which were publicized after the Complainant had vacated the post.
Udvalget fandt imidlertid ikke, at de påklagede forhold kunne betegnes som videnskabelig uredelighed.
The case had been considered on the Committee for Natural Science, Agricultural & Veterinary Science and Technical Science (UNJTVF).
I oktober 2006 beklagede UVVU over for klager, at der ikke var blevet reageret på klagers brev fra september 2005, idet det således kunne have været afklaret, hvorvidt klager ønskede, at UVVU skulle se på sagen på ny.
In October 2006 DCSD apologized to the Complainant that there had been no response to the Complainant's letter from September 2005, as this might then have clarified whether the Complainant wished DCSD to revisit the case.
UVVU fandt i oktober 2006 ikke, at der var grundlag for at genoptage sagen.
In October 2006 DCSD did not find that there was any basis for re-opening the case.
UVVU henviste til at klagers breve, fra henholdsvis september 2005 og august 2006, efter UVVU's opfattelse ikke indeholdt nye oplysninger, som måtte antages, at kunne have ført til et andet udfald af sagen.
DCSD referred to the fact that the Complainant's letters, from September 2005 and August 2006, respectively, did not in DCSD's view contain fresh information that might supposedly have led to a different case outcome.
I afgørelsen af august 2005 havde UVVU alene taget stilling til de forhold, der var omfattet af klagen, altså de to rapporter.
In its ruling of August 2005 DCSD had purely taken a stance on the matters covered by the complaint, i.e. the two reports.
Sagen blev behandlet efter bekendtgørelse nr. 993 af 15. december 1998 om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed.
e case was considered in accordance with Danish Executive Order No. 993 of 15 December 1998 on the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty.
Bekendtgørelsen indeholdt ikke hjemmel til, at UVVU af egen drift kunne tage andre klagepunkter op til behandling.
e Executive Order did not authorize DCSD to take up other complaints or grievances for consideration of its own accord.
I afgørelsen af august 2005 havde UVVU udtalt kritik af, at klager ikke i sin tid fik forelagt udkast til rapporterne inden publicering.
In the ruling of August 2005 DCSD had voiced criticism that the Complainant had originally presented no draft of the reports prior to publication.
UVVU fandt imidlertid ikke, at der var tale om videnskabelig uredelighed, og UVVU havde ikke kompetence til at pålægge myndigheden at ændre forfatterangivelsen.
DCSD did not find that any scientific dishonesty was involved, however, and DCSD did not have the competence to order the authority to change the acknowledgment of authorship.
Den indklagede havde siden søgt og fået anden ansættelse i en privat virksomhed.
e Defendant had since applied for and obtained another appointment with a private company.
Sagen var ikke færdigbehandlet ved udgangen af 2006.
e case had not been finalized by the end of 2006.
I marts 2006 rettede en navngiven person på vegne af et medicinal
In March 2006 a named person approached DCSD with a com
firma henvendelse til UVVU med en klage.
plaint on behalf of a pharmaceutical company.
Klager oplyste, at en dansk fagforenings ansvarsforsikring efter hans opfattelse havde handlet videnskabeligt uredeligt ved i en årsberetning at have konkluderet, at et hyppigt anvendt lægemiddel var toksisk og anvendelsen af lægemidlet burde undgås i forbindelse med en nærmere angiven behandling.
e Complainant informed us that a Danish trade-union's indemnity insurance provider had, in his opinion, acted in a scientifically dishonest fashion by concluding in an annual report that a medicinal product in common use was toxic and that use of the drug should be avoided for the purposes of a specific therapy.
I august 2006 klagede en person til UVVU, idet en navngiven
In August 2006 a person complained to DCSD, as a named person
person havde skrevet en artikel i et tidsskrift, som efter klagers opfattelse, var skrevet af efter hendes afhandling.
had written an article in a journal which, in the view of the Complainant, had been copied from her dissertation.
Klager mente, at indklagede ikke havde henvist til hendes afhandling, og at han fremstillede indholdet af artiklen som sit eget.
e Complainant felt that the Defendant had not made reference to her dissertation and that he was representing the content of the article as his own.
Indklagede oplyste, at der ikke var tale om plagiering, idet de oplysninger, han havde anvendt i artiklen, var hentet fra praksis på et nærmere angivet område, og ellers kunne findes i andre kendte værker.
e Defendant stated that it was not a case of plagiarization, as the information he had used in the article was taken from practice in a particular field, and was otherwise generally available in other well-known works.
VITENSKAPELIG UREDELIGHET OG FORSKNINGSETIKK I NORGE
SCIENTIFIC DISHONESTY AND RESEARCH ETHICS IN NORWAY
VITENSKAPELIG UREDELGHET OG FORSKNINGSETIKK I NORGE
SCIENTIFIC DISHONESTY AND RESEARCH ETHICS IN NORWAY
Nyheten om forskningsfusk i Norge i januar 2006 slo ned som en bombe.
e news about research fraud in Norway in January 2006 came like a bombshell.
Det som svir mest er kanskje skaden på image i offentlighetens arenaer.
What stings most, perhaps, is the damage to the image in arenas of publicity.
Det som ministeren ikke nevnte var at lovutkastet hadde en lang og vanskelig forhistorie med debatter og uenigheter hele veien.
What the minister did not mention was that the draft had a long and difficult previous history, accompanied by debate and disagreement all along the way.
Vi i de forskningsetiske komiteer i Norge har ved flere anledninger sett på Danmark når det gjaldt å bringe spørsmål om uredelighet i forskningen på
We on the research ethics committees in Norway have repeatedly looked to Denmark when it came to raising questions of dishonesty in research.
// VITENSKAPELIG UREDELIGHET OG FORSKNINGSETIKK // 1
// SCIENTIFIC DISHONESTY AND RESEARCH ETHICS IN NORWAY // 1
I 2001 forelå det en innstilling til departementet, forfattet av en bredt sammensatt arbeidsgruppe og administrert av Norges forskningsråd om å opprette et granskingsutvalg for vitenskapelig uredelighet som dekker alle fagområder.
In 2001 a recommendation was made available to the Ministry, penned by a broadly mixed working party and administered by the Research Council of Norway, to set up an investigative committee for scientific dishonesty covering all specialist fields.
Regjeringen fulgte opp med et høringsnotat om å innføre en lov om forskningsetikk i 2004.
e Government followed up with a consultative paper to introduce a law on research ethics in 2004.
Undertegnede hadde raskt gått ut offentlig med positiv omtale av UVVUs ”dom”.
I myself had quickly gone public with positive press about DCSD's ”judgment”.
Men i Norge som i andre land var det en god del forskere og journalister som var kritiske til det de oppfattet som illegitim innblanding av forskningsetikk og forsøk på å begrense ytringsfriheten.
But in Norway, as in other countries, there were quite a number of researchers and journalists critical of what they perceived as the illicit involvement of research ethics and attempts to limit freedom of speech.
Striden gikk dypt, også blant de som er aktive på det forskningsetiske felt.
e conflict ran deep, even among those active in the field of research ethics.
Spørsmålet hva som utgjør vitenskapelig uredelighet ble intenst debattert, delvis med deltakelse fra danske eksperter.
e question of what constitutes scientific dishonesty was fiercely debated, partly with the participation of Danish experts.
På den bakgrunnen var flere forskere kritiske til ytterlige forskningsetiske organer.
Against that background a number of researchers were critical of additional research ethics bodies.
I enkelte fag er det vanlig at veileder eller prosjekt - hhv. instituttleder automatisk blir oppført som medforfatter.
In some fields it is customary for supervisors or project leaders and/or heads of department to be listed as co-authors automatically.
Utfordringen er selvfølgelig ikke å begrense mulighetene for medforfatterskap, men å ansvarliggjøre alle meddforfattere for sine konkrete bidrag til den vitenskapelige publikasjonen, samt å utelukke ren æresforfatterskap.
e challenge, of course, is not to restrict scope for coauthorship, but to render all co-authors answerable for their hands-on contributions to the publication in hand and to exclude out-and-out honorary authorship.
Vancouver reglene gir klare kriterier for forfatterskap og man må håpe at de etter hvert blir implementert i flere tidsskrifter og fag.
e Vancouver rules provide clear-cut criteria for authorship and it is to be hoped that they will gradually be implemented in more journals and disciplines.
Med den nye loven om forskningsetikk vil Norge få et nasjonalt granskingsutvalg for uredelighetssaker som institusjonene ikke selv greier å ordne opp i.
With its new Act on Research Ethics, Norway will have a national investigative committee for cases of dishonesty that the institutions themselves are not capable of rectifying.
Lovens definisjon på uredelig forskning er: ”Med vitenskapelig uredelighet menes forfalskning, fabrikkering, plagiering og andre alvorlige brudd med god vitenskapelig praksis som er begått forsettlig eller grovt uaktsomt i planlegging, gjennomføring eller rapportering av forskning.”
e Act's definition of dishonest research is: ”Scientific dishonesty shall mean falsification, fabrication, plagiarization and other serious violations of good scientific/academic practice, committed intentionally or with gross negligence in the planning, implementation or reporting of research.” e investigative committee will be attached to the secretariat at the Research Ethics Committees.