natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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In a single case the complaint was withdrawn by the complainant3).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.
Formanden for bedømmelsesudvalget oplyste, at der var større tekstsammenfald mellem afhandlingen og et appendiks til artiklen end tekstsammenfald med selve artiklen. 
e chairman of the adjudication committee stated that there was greater textual overlap between the thesis and an appendix to the article than there was with the actual article.
Det fremgår af bekendtgørelse nr. 668 af 28. juni 2005 om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed § 2, at der 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. 
According to Danish Executive Order No. 668 of 28 June 2005 on the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, Section 2, 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.
Der var i UKSF enighed om, at forskeren som anført af bedømmelsesudvalget havde gjort sig skyldig i plagiering. 
ere was consensus on UKSF that the researcher, as adduced by the adjudication committee, had been guilty of plagiarization.
UKSF lagde til grund, at plagieringen var sket fra appendikset til artiklen, hvilket for så vidt kunne betragtes som uacceptabelt. 
UKSF based its argument on the fact that the plagiarization had taken place from the appendix to the article, which as such could be viewed as unacceptable.
Det var imidlertid UKSF's opfattelse, at plagieringen vedrørte de beskrivende afsnit i forskerens afhandling. 
However, it was UKSF's opinion that the plagiarization concerned the descriptive sections in the researcher's thesis.
Navnlig på den baggrund mente UKSF ikke, at plagieringen var af en sådan karakter, at den med fornøden sikkerhed kunne siges at have indebåret en utilbørlig vildledning om forskerens egen videnskabelige indsats. 
With this in mind, in particular, UKSF did not think that the nature of the plagiarization was such that it could be said with the necessary certainty to have brought about undue misrepresentation about the researcher's own scientific efforts.
UKSF fandt derfor ikke grundlag for at statuere videnskabelig uredelighed. 
UKSF therefore found no basis for upholding scientific dishonesty.
En professor rettede i september 2006 henvendelse til UVVU, idet han 
In September 2006 a professor contacted DCSD, as he wished to be
ønskede at blive renset for påstande om videnskabelig uredelighed, som var blevet fremsat i en tjenstlig indberetning fra en dekan til rektor på det universitet, professoren var ansat. 
cleared of allegations of scientific dishonesty put forward in an official report from a dean to a vice-chancellor at the university where the professor was employed.
Professoren blev i den tjenstlige indberetning til rektoren i en række kritikpunkter beskyldt for at have udvist groft uagtsom adfærd på en måde, der medfører en utilbørlig vildledning om egen videnskabelig indsats og resultater. 
In the official report submitted to the vice-chancellor the professor was accused on a number of critical counts of having displayed grossly negligent conduct in such a way as to bring about undue misrepresentation of his own scientific efforts and results.
Indberetningen havde baggrund i en rapport fra det sagkyndige udvalg på universitetet. 
e report was based on a report from the expert committee at the university.
I præmisserne for sagens behandling er det understreget, at UVVU ikke er klageinstans for universitetet. 
In the premisses laid down for considering the case, it was emphasized that DCSD is not the appeal agency for the university.
I afgørelsen skitseres personalesagen i hovedtræk. 
e ruling outlines the bare bones of the personnel-related case.
De forhold, der gav anledning til kritik af professoren, var følgende: 
e factors that gave rise to criticism of the professor were as follows:
1) Kritik af de anvendte metoder, herunder statistiske beregningsmetoder. 
1) Criticism of the methods used, including statistical methods of computation.
2) Kritik af professorens omgang med data. 
2) Criticism of the professor's treatment of data.
I en lang periode var der usikkerhed om præcis hvilke datasæt, der var lagt til grund for bestemte beregninger og deraf følgende konklusioner. 
For a long period there was uncertainty as to exactly which data sets had been used as the basis for particular calculations and the ensuing conclusions.
3) Kritik af at professoren, da han offentliggjorde sine resultater, ikke gjorde beregningsgrundlaget tilgængeligt på en sådan måde, at resultaterne kunne efterprøves, og at han ved flere lejligheder undlod at efterkomme opfordringer til at fremlægge det i fuldt omfang. 
3) Criticism of the fact that, when publishing his results, the professor did not make the computational basis available in such a way that the results could be verified, and that on a number of occasions he failed to comply with calls to present this in full.
Ad punkt 1 (Kritik af anvendte metoder) Kritikken vedrørte brugen af en bestemt statistisk formel, som det sagkyndige udvalg i rapporten vurderede ikke kunne begrunde en af professorens centrale konklusioner. 
Re point 1 (criticism of methods used) e criticism concerned the use of a particular statistical formula, which the expert committee in the report did not consider able to justify one of the professor's central conclusions.
Det er i videnskabelige kredse et generelt spørgsmål, hvad man kan og ikke kan konkludere på baggrund af faktoranalyser under forskellige betingelser. 
In scientific circles, what can and cannot be concluded on the basis of factor analyses under different conditions is a general issue.
UVVU påpeger i afgørelsen, at en kritisk ekspertgennemgang af statistiske metoder i ethvert større empirisk projekt med en vis sandsynlighed vil give anledning til diskussion, uden at det automatisk rejser spørgsmål om videnskabelig uredelighed. 
In its ruling DCSD does stress that a critical expert review of statistical methods in any major empirical project will, with some probability, give rise to discussion, without automatically raising issues of scientific dishonesty.
Ad punkt 2 (Kritik af datahåndteringen) I det sagkyndige udvalgs rapport blev professoren kritiseret for, at der kunne påvises fejl i hans omgang med data, og at han ikke i sine publikationer havde gjort rede for de anvendte data på en måde, der umiddelbart tillod at gøre de gennemførte analyser efter. 
Re point 2 (criticism of data management) In the expert committee's report the professor was criticized for the fact that errors could be detected in his treatment of data, and that in his publications he had not accounted for the data used in some immediately accessible way that enabled the analyses performed to be replicated.
UVVU fandt, at denne forsømmelighed kunne betragtes som uredelig, hvis den var forsætlig eller groft uagtsom og indebar en utilbørlig vildledning om egen videnskabelig indsats og/eller videnskabelige resultater. 
DCSD considered that this negligence could be regarded as dishonest if it was deliberate or grossly negligent and brought about undue misrepresentation of his own scientific efforts and/or scientific results.
Det fremgik imidlertid af det sagkyndige udvalgs rapport, at de begåede fejl ikke på afgørende måde kunne ændre de konklusioner, som data i professorens konklusioner kunne begrunde - vel at mærke hvis man lagde de videnskabelige og metodiske præmisser til grund, som professoren var kendt for at gøre. 
From the expert committee's report, however, it emerged that the errors committed could not decisively change the conclusions that data in the professor's conclusions were able to justify - that is, taking the scientific and methodological premisses which the professor was known for using as a basis.
Professoren påpegede, at frafald i længdeundersøgelser var et velkendt problem. 
e professor pointed out that withdrawal in longitudinal studies was a well-known problem.
UVVU fandt det dog ikke tilstrækkeligt til at begrunde, at forholdet ikke blev diskuteret. 
DCSD did not consider it sufficient, however, to justify the failure to discuss the fact.
• UVVU fandt ikke, at udeladelsen var så graverende, at den kunne karakteriseres som utilbørlig vildledning. 
• DCSD did not find the omission so grave as to warrant characterizing it as undue misrepresentation.
Ad punkt 3 (Kritik af den manglende mulighed for efterprøvning) UVVU påpegede, at det er vigtigt, at såvel kontroversielle som forventelige resultater kan gøres til genstand for efterprøvning med mindst mulig forsinkelse. 
Re point 3 (criticism of the lack of opportunity for verification) DCSD highlighted the importance of being able to make both controversial and predictable results subject to verification with the least delay possible.
Ved vurderingen af om professoren, ved ikke at efterkomme kravet om fuld fremlæggelse af datagrundlaget, havde gjort sig skyldig i grov uagtsomhed med vildledning til følge, lagde UVVU vægt på følgende: 
In evaluating whether, by not complying with the requirement concerning full presentation of the data stock, the professor had been guilty of gross negligence, with resultant misrepresentation, DCSD attached importance to the following:
- at universitetet undlod at stille præcise krav om fremlæggelse, - at der ikke i dansk forskning foreligger regler om præcise frister for indlevering af data, - at professorens videnskabelige standpunkt var velkendt, og - at de spørgsmål, der ville rejse sig i forbindelse med offentliggørelsen, ikke var om vildledning, men om hvorvidt professorens videnskabelige modstandere ville kunne finde svagheder i den videnskabelige argumentation. 
- that the university failed to lay down precise requirements concerning presentation, - that there are no rules in Danish research about precise deadlines for submission of data, - that the professor's scientific viewpoint was well-known, and - that the questions that would be raised in connection with publication were not about misrepresentation but about whether the professor's scientific opponents would be able to find weaknesses in his scientific line of argument.
• UVVU fandt, at det derfor var et spørgsmål om videnskabelig holdbarhed/ kvalitet, men ikke om uredelighed. 
• DCSD therefore found that it was a question of scientific tenability/ quality, but not one of dishonesty.
Professoren blev renset for uredelighedspåstandene, da der ikke kunne fastslås at være tale om utilbørlig vildledning om egen videnskabelig indsats. 
e professor was cleared of the dishonesty allegations, since evidence of undue misrepresentation about his own scientific efforts could not be established.
I oktober 2006 modtog UVVU en henvendelse fra en borger, som 
In October 2006 DCSD received an enquiry from a citizen, stating that
oplyste, at der i en brochure udgivet af en sundhedsvidenskabelig forening, var ukorrekte oplysninger om en sygdoms behandlingsmuligheder. 
a brochure published by a medical science association contained incorrect information about the therapeutic options available for a particular disorder.
Idet klageren ikke opfyldte kravet i § 4 i bekendtgørelse nr. 668 af 28. juni 2005 om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed om partsstatus, ønskede han, at UVVU skulle tage sagen op af egen drift. 
Since the complainant failed to meet the requirement in Section 4 of Danish Executive Order No. 668 of 28 June 2005 on the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concerning party status, he wished for DCSD to take on the case of its own accord.
UVVU afviste sagen med den begrundelse, at den omtalte brochure ikke var et videnskabeligt produkt, og at UVVU derfor ikke havde kompetence til at behandle sagen. 
DCSD rejected the case on the grounds that the brochure in question was not a scientific product, and that DCSD did not have the authority to consider the case.
UVVU fandt i øvrigt ikke at have kompetence til at vurdere, om officielle anbefalinger vedrørende fødevarer burde ændres. 
Furthermore, DCSD did not consider that it had the authority to assess whether official recommendations concerning foods should be changed.
I januar 2007 henvendte en person sig til UVVU, fordi det var hendes 
In January 2007 a person contacted DCSD because it was her opinion
opfattelse, at en forsker havde handlet videnskabeligt uredeligt ved i en publiceret artikel om sammenhængen mellem cancer og mobiltelefoni at have foretaget en vildledende anvendelse af statistiske metoder samt en forvredet fortolkning af egne resultater og konklusioner. 
that a researcher had acted in a scientifically dishonest way, having made misleading use of statistical methods and distorted the interpretation of his own results and conclusions in a published article on the link between cancer and mobile telephony.
UVVU fandt heller ikke at kunne tage sagen op af egen drift, idet der ikke forelå en begrundet formodning om videnskabelig uredelighed. 
Nor did DCSD consider that it was able to take up the case of its own accord, as there was no justified supposition of scientific dishonesty.
UVVU lagde ved vurderingen af artiklen vægt på, at den tydeligt angav hvilke statistiske oplysninger, der dannede baggrund for konklusionerne. 
In its evaluation of the article DCSD stressed that it clearly set out the statistical information that formed the background to the conclusions.
I afvisningen af klagen oplyste UVVU endvidere klageren om, at UVVU ikke kan behandle sager, der vedrører videnskabelige teoriers holdbarhed eller sandhed eller sager, der vedrører forskningskvaliteten af et videnskabeligt produkt. 
In its rejection of the complaint DCSD further informed the complainant that DCSD cannot consider cases relating to the tenability or truth of scientific theories, or cases concerning the research quality of a scientific product.
I februar 2007 rettede en klager henvendelse til UVVU med angivelse 
In February 2007 a complainant approached DCSD, stating that two
Da UVVU ikke kan behandle sager, der vedrører videnskabelige metoders holdbarhed eller sandhed samt sager vedrørende forskningskvalitet, fandt UVVU, at sagen måtte afvises. 
Since DCSD cannot deal with cases concerning the tenability or truth of scientific methods and cases concerning research quality, DCSD found that the case could only be rejected.
UVVU fandt derudover ikke, at det påklagede faldt ind under videnskabelig uredelighed, idet det ikke efter UVVU's opfattelse var påvist, at de indklagede havde udvist en adfærd, der kunne betegnes som forsætlig eller groft uagtsom vildledning. 
DCSD did not find, moreover, that the grievance complained of came under the heading of scientific dishonesty, since in DCSD's view it had not been demonstrated that the defendants had displayed conduct that could be characterized as intentionally or grossly negligent misrepresentation.
Sagen syntes i stedet at indicere en faglig uenighed, som UVVU ikke kan efterprøve. 
Instead, the case seemed to be indicative of professional disagreement, which DCSD is unable to verify.
I maj 2007 rettede tre personer henvendelse til UVVU. 
In May 2007 three people contacted DCSD.
indklagede gruppen tre forfattere af en rapport om placeringen af et forskningscenter for videnskabelig uredelighed i form af forfalskning, forvridning og skjult kassation af uønskede resultater. 
group lodged a complaint against three authors of a report on the siting of a research centre, on the grounds of scientific dishonesty in the form of falsification, distortion and surreptitious discarding of undesirable results.
UVVU fandt ikke at kunne behandle sagen, da klagen ikke vedrørte et videnskabeligt produkt i UVVU-bekendtgørelsens forstand. 
DCSD did not feel able to consider the case as the complaint did not relate to a scientific product in the sense of the DCSD Executive Order.
UVVU har kun kompetence til at behandle klager, såfremt det produkt, som klagen retter sig imod, er omfattet af begrebet ”forskning”. 
DCSD is only authorized to deal with a complaint if the product addressed by the complaint is covered by the concept of ”research”.
UVVU foretog en konkret vurdering af rapporten, for at afgøre om den kunne anses som forskning. 
DCSD undertook a concrete evaluation of the report in order to decide whether it could be regarded as research.
Ved vurderingen lagde UVVU navnlig vægt på følgende: 
In its evaluation DCSD particularly stressed the following:
• Rapportens formål og karakter. 
• e purpose and nature of the report.
Af rapportens indledende kapitel fremgik, at den var en indledende undersøgelse af vilkår for placeringen af forskningscentret på et bestemt sted. 
e introductory chapter to the report showed that it was a preliminary study of conditions governing the siting of the research centre in a particular place.
Den var baseret på en række interviews med forskellige interessenter samt faglitteratur på området. 
It was based on a series of interviews with various stakeholders and specialist literature in the field.
• Rapporten var en udredning med deraf følgende anbefalinger. 
• e report was a fact-finding account, complete with resultant recommendations.
• Rapporten var et resultat af en rådgivningsopgave for et ministerium. 
• e report was the result of a consultancy assignment for a ministry.