natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I første ansøgningsrunde, indkom der 18 ansøgninger med dansk deltagelse. 
In the pre-proposal phase 18 pre-proposals with Danish participation were received.
Samlet kom der 45 ansøgninger med et samlet budget på 56,2 millioner euro. 
At total number of 45 pre-proposals were received with a total requested budget of 56.2 million euros.
Det ansøgte beløb fra danske forskere var på 3,3 millioner euro. 
The amount applied by Danish researchers were 3.3 million euros.
DSF havde reserveret 1 million euro til opslaget. 
DSF has allocated 1 million euros to the call.
Der kan læses mere om de tre projekter med dansk deltagelse nedenfor. 
You can read more about the three projects with Danish participation below.
Projektkoordinator: Dr. Kiran Raosaheb Patil, European Molecular Biology Laboratory 
Project coordinator: Dr. Kiran Raosaheb Patil, European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Dansk partner: Professor Jochen Förster, Technical University of Denmark 
Danish partner: Professor Jochen Förster, Technical University of Denmark
Samlet budget: 1.545.248 euro - heraf 1.272.742 euro i funding 
Total budget: 1.545.248 euro - hereof 1.272.742 euro in funding
Samlet finansiering til danske forskere: 259.538 euro 
Funding to Danish Scientists: 259.538 euro
Partnere: European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Germany, University of Minho, Portugal, SilicoLife, Portugal, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat, Germany, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark. 
Partners: European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Germany, University of Minho, Portugal, SilicoLife, Portugal, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat, Germany, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark.
Projektkoordinator: Dr. Darren Nesbeth, University College London 
Project coordinator: Dr. Darren Nesbeth, University College London
Dansk partner: Lektor Mhairi Workman, Technical University of Denmark 
Danish partner: Lektor Mhairi Workman, Technical University of Denmark
Samlet budget: 2.153.090 euro - heraf 1.860.765 euro i funding 
Total budget: 2.153.090 euro - heraf 1.860.765 euro i funding
Partnere: University College London, UK, Jacobs University Bremen, Germany, SilicoLife, Portugal, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain, Bio-Prodict, Austria, Ingenza, UK, University of Strathclyde, UK. 
Partners: University College London, UK, Jacobs University Bremen, Germany, SilicoLife, Portugal, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain, Bio-Prodict, Austria, Ingenza, UK, University of Strathclyde, UK.
Projektkoordinator: Professor Matthias Franzreb, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology 
Project coordinator: Professor Matthias Franzreb, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Danske partner: Lektor Timothy John Hobley, Technical University of Denmark 
Danish partner: Lektor Timothy John Hobley, Technical University of Denmark
Udvikling af optimerede cellefabrikker til produktion af forskellige produkter, er en tidskrævende proces, og udgør en betydelig omkostning. 
Development of optimized cell factories for the production of novel compounds is a time-consuming process and represents a significant cost/time burden.
DeYeastLibrary vil forsøge at overvinde dette ved at bruge cutting-edge beregningsmæssige og eksperimentielle værktøjer. 
DeYeastLibrary project will help overcoming this hurdle by using cutting-edge computational and experimental tools.
Projektet vil udnytte den biokemiske design som naturen selv benytter og vil være med til at fremskynde udviklingen af gærbaserede bioprocessor. 
The project will exploit the biochemical design principles of nature and will accelerate the development of yeast-based bioprocesses.
Lektor Mhairi Workman fra Institut for Systembiologi, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, er partner i det €2,2 million store “IPCRES” konsortium. 
Associate Professor Mhairi Workman from Department of Systems Biology, Technical University of Denmark, is partner in the €2,2 mio.
CAA er et mellemprodukt ved fremstilling af nogle typer medicin, mens PDO benyttes til afisning af fly. 
CAA is an intermediate in the manufacturing of some medicines, while PDO is used for the de-icing of aircrafts.
Projektet ønsker at fremstille bakterie og gær stammer der kan omdanne glycerol til CAA og PDO. 
The project aims to produce bacterial and yeast strains that can convert glycerol into CAA and PDO.
Samtykkeerklæring for vurdering af udenlandsk uddannelse 
Consent form for assessment of foreign qualifications
Jeg giver samtidig samtykke til, at Styrelsen for Forskning og Uddannelse kan indhente oplysninger om min uddannelse til brug for styrelsens vurdering af uddannelsen. 
I also consent to the Danish Agency for Science and Higher Education requesting information about my qualifications for the purpose of the agency's assessment.
Information til uddannelsesindehaveren 
Information to the qualification holder
(UVVU fandt ikke grund til at fortsætte behandlingen af egen drift). 
(DCSD found no reason to continue its consideration of its own accord).
• De påklagede forhold var ikke omfattet af begrebet ”forskning” i bekendtgørelsens forstand. 
• e particulars being appealed were not covered by the concept of ”research” in the sense of the Executive Order.
• En tilbundsgående undersøgelse af sagen ville være for omfattende og ressourcekrævende i forhold til sagens betydning. 
• An in-depth examination of the case would be too extensive and require too many resources in relation to the importance of the case.
• Der var tale om forhold, der ikke havde indflydelse på videnskabeligt arbejde, og således ikke var begået ”i forskning”. 
• Some factors involved had no bearing on scientific work and had thus not been perpetrated ”during research”.
• Afvisning af genoptagelse af sager, der tidligere er afgjort. 
• Dismissal of resumption of cases previously ruled on.
• Der var tale om et ophavsretligt spørgsmål, hvilket ikke er omfattet af UVVU's kompetence. 
• Some copyright issue not covered by DCSD's competence was involved.
1) Tidligere Udvalget for samfundsvidenskabelig og humanistisk forskning. 
1) Formerly the Committee for Social Science and the Humanities.
2) Tidligere Udvalget vedrørende videnskabelig uredelighed i naturvidenskabelig, 
2) Formerly the Committee on Scientific Dishonesty in Natural Science,
jordbrugs- og veterinærvidenskabelig og teknisk-videnskabelig forskning. 
Agricultural & Veterinary Science and Technical Science.
I en enkelt sag (sag nr. 2) har UVVU udtalt uredelighed. 
In a single case (Case No. 2) DCSD declared misconduct.
Sagen drejede sig om plagiat. 
e case was about plagiarism.
I 2006 indkom der yderligere seks sager. 
2006 saw the arrival of a further six cases.
Sagerne var ikke færdigbehandlede ved årsskiftet 2006/2007. 
e cases had not been finalized by the turn of the year 2006/2007.
Årsberetningens kapitel 1 indeholder en gennemgang af de sager UVVU har behandlet i 2006. 
Chapter 1 of the Annual Report includes a review of the cases DCSD considered in 2006.
I årsberetningens kapitel 2 er trykt to artikler. 
Two articles have been printed in Chapter 2 of the Annual Report.
Den anden artikel ”På vej mod internationale normer for integritet i forskningen” er skrevet af Vagn Lundsgaard Hansen, professor, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, som er medlem af UVVU's udvalg for natur- teknologi- og produktionsvidenskabelig forskning. 
”Towards international standards of integrity in research”, has been written by Professor Vagn Lundsgaard Hansen of the Technical University of Denmark (DTU), who is a member of DCSD's Committee on Research in Natural, Technological and Production Science.
Jeg takker UVVU's medlemmer, suppleanter og sekretariat for godt samarbejde i 2006. 
I thank DCSD's members, alternates and secretariat for their excellent collaboration in 2006.
Landsdommer Formand for UVVU 
High Court Judge Chairman of DCSD
Af Annette Rasmussen, fuldmægtig, cand.jur. og Cecilie Dickmeiss, fuldmægtig, cand.jur. 
By Annette Rasmussen, LLM, Head of Section and Cecilie Dickmeiss, LLM, Head of Section
En person rettede i marts 2005 henvendelse til UVVU, idet det var 
A person contacted DCSD in March 2005, since it was his view that a
hans opfattelse, at et forskningsinstitut havde handlet videnskabeligt uredeligt. 
research institution had acted in a scientifically dishonest fashion.
Endvidere var det klagerens opfattelse, at der i rapporten var sket en unødig krænkelse af en utilstrækkeligt anonymiseret person. 
Furthermore, it was the Complainant's view that the report contained an undue violation of an insufficiently depersonalized individual.
Det pågældende forskningsinstitut oplyste til UVVU, at rapporten var en erfaringsopsamling rekvireret af et ministerium, hvorfor rapporten ikke skulle leve op til de videnskabelige krav om dokumentation og teorirelatering, der stilles til egentlige forskningsrapporter. 
e research institution in question informed DCSD that the report was a collection of experiences requested by a ministry, for which reason the report was not supposed to meet the academic requirements of documentation and theory-relating made of research reports proper.
Klager bemærkede hertil, at der ikke var noget i projektbeskrivelsen, der tydede på, at det ikke drejede sig om en egentlig videnskabelig undersøgelse med indhentning af originale oplysninger ved en accepteret videnskabelig metode. 
On this point the Complainant noted that there was nothing in the project description to indicate that this was not a proper scientific study, with original information collected by means of an accepted scientific method.
Et flertal af udvalgets medlemmer fandt, at rapporten ikke var forskning, idet rapporten var deskriptiv og havde karakter af et udredningsarbejde med det sigte at indsamle og formidle erfaringer. 
A majority of the members of the Committee found that the report was not research, as it was descriptive and took the nature of a fact-finding assignment with the aim of collecting and disseminating experience.
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