natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
UVVU har i en enkelt sag ( 2001, sag nr. 15) afvist at tage stilling til en forskers klart plagierende adfærd i forbindelse med en kronik under henvisning til, at kronikken “efter sin fremtrædelsesform ikke kunne begrunde en behandling efter videnskabelige kriterier”. 
In a single case (2001, case no. 15), DCSD declined to take a stance on the clearly plagiaristic conduct of a researcher in connection with a feature article, with reference to the fact that the feature “according to the form in which it appeared, was unable to warrant consideration in accordance with scientific criteria”.
Arbejdsgruppen er nået til den opfattelse, at det med den her foreslåede definition af begrebet videnskabelig uredelighed vil være rimeligst, om ethvert skriftligt “produkt” fra en forskers hånd, uanset dets fremtrædelsesform, skal kunne underkastes en prøvelse for uredelighed. 
The working group has come to the view that, with the definition of the scientific dishonesty concept suggested here, it would be most reasonable if any written “product” produced by a researcher, irrespective of the form in which it manifests itself, could be subjected to scrutiny for dishonesty.
Til gengæld bør UVVU være yderst tilbageholdende med at bedømme en forskers indlæg i og bidrag til den offentlige debat i pressen. 
Conversely, DCSD should be extremely reticent about assessing a researcher's writings in and contributions to the public debate in the press.
I denne forbindelse må det præciseres, at forskeres deltagelse i TV- og radioindslag, interviews o. lign bør betragtes som - mundtlige - handlinger, der kun yderst sjældent falder ind under det område, hvor det er rimeligt at prøve for uredelighed. 
A qualification should be added in here, to the effect that researchers' participation in TV and radio spots, interviews and so on should be regarded as acts-verbal acts-which only with extreme rarity will fall within the domain where testing for dishonesty is reasonable.
Uanset, at der efter foranstående betragtninger foreligger et produkt, kan der være tilfælde, der bør undtages. 
Notwithstanding the existence of a product in keeping with the considerations above, there can be cases that merit exception.
Bør der være adgang til sagsbehandling i andre tilfælde end ved klager? 
Should there be facilities for having a case heard in instances other than complaints?
Denne mulighed er imidlertid ikke medtaget i forlaget til ny lov om forskningsrådgivning, til trods for, at der i bemærkningerne er oplyst, at lovforslaget svarer til den gældende bestemmelse, jf. bemærkningerne til lovforslagets § 31. 
However, this option has not been included in the draft of the new Act on Research Advice, despite the explanatory notes having stated that the bill corresponds to the current provision in force, cf. the notes on Section 31 of the draft bill.
Arbejdsgruppen finder, at denne opgave er meget vigtig og bør løses af UVVU, og arbejdsgruppen vil derfor anbefale, at der skabes udtrykkelig hjemmel i de nye regler for behandling af sådanne typer sager. 
The working group considers this task very important and feels that it should be performed by DCSD; the working group therefore wishes to recommend that express provision be made in the new rules to allow the consideration of such types of cases.
I praksis er medlemmer og suppleanter ofte rådsmedlemmer eller tidligere rådsmedlemmer, og suppleanterne deltager i praksis i udvalgenes møder mv. 
Appointments are made for four years, as for members of the Danish Research Councils, with the option of reappointment for a term of two years.
Efter bekendtgørelsen - og forslaget til ny forskningsrådslov - beskikker ressortministeren en fælles formand for de tre udvalg. 
According to the Executive Order - and the proposal for a new Research Advice Act - the responsible minister appoints a joint chairperson for the three committees.
Formanden skal ifølge bestemmelserne være landsdommer, og han har efter lovforslaget til opgave alene at træffe afgørelse i retlige spørgsmål (§ 31, stk. 
Under the provisions the chairperson must be a high court judge and under the bill his mandate will be to rule solely on matters of law (Section 31, subs.
Efter den nugældende forretningsorden er det endvidere tillagt formanden 
According to the rules of procedure currently in force, the duty is also vested in the chairperson to
• at afvise sager, der åbenbart skal afvises (§ 7, stk. 
• reject cases patently worthy of rejection (Section 7, subs.
• at bestemme skriftlig votering (§ 7, stk. 
• determine that any deliberation be made in writing (Section 7, subs.
• at tillade parterne foretræde for udvalget (§ 7, stk. 
• grant the parties an audience with the Committee (Section 7, subs.
De i forretningsordenen beskrevne opgaver for formanden svarer formentlig til de opgaver, der påhviler formænd for andre kollegiale organer, og det må antages at udvalgene til enhver tid kan ændre delegationen ved en ændring af udvalgenes forretningsorden. 
The chairperson's tasks described in the rules of procedure are presumably in line with the tasks incumbent on the chairmen of other collegiate bodies, and it must be assumed that the Committees can change the delegation at any time by changing the Committees' rules of procedure.
Det er imidlertid ikke efter arbejdsgruppens opfattelse almindeligt, at en formand via loven tillægges kompetence til alene at træffe afgørelse i en udefineret gruppe af "retlige spørgsmål". 
In the opinion of the working group, however, it is not normal for a chairperson to be vested in law with the authority to make a ruling on his own in an undefined group of “matters of law”.
Arbejdsgruppen har diskuteret, om ikke formanden burde være en aktiv forsker i stedet for en landsdommer. 
The working group has discussed whether the chairperson should be an active researcher instead of a high court judge.
Begrundelsen for, at formanden skal være landsdommer er ifølge bemærkningerne til lovforslaget "at sikre den juridiske ekspertise i UVVU, hvis sanktionskompetencer kan have store konsekvenser for den enkelte forsker". 
The rationale for the chairperson having to be a high court judge, according to the explanatory notes to the bill, is “to assure the legal expertise at DCSD, whose disciplinary sanctioning powers can have great consequences for the individual researcher”.
Som retsgaranti for de juridiske aspekter burde fastholdes en mulighed for at påklage de retlige spørgsmål til ministeriet. 
As a guarantee of due process for the legal aspects involved, some channel should be retained for making complaints to the ministry on points of law.
Efter de gældende regler kan det enkelte udvalg beslutte, at det ved undersøgelsen af en sag skal bistås af en eller flere eksterne sagkyndige (bekendtgørelsens § 9, stk. 
According to the current rules, the individual committee can decide that it is to be assisted by one or more external experts in its examination of a case (Section 9, subs.
Dette er udfoldet i den gældende forretningsorden, hvorefter der kan indgå eksterne sagkyndige i de samme sted nævnte ad hocudvalg. 
This is expanded in the current rules of procedure, according to which external experts can be recruited to the ad hoc committees mentioned in the same place.
Et ad hoc-udvalg kan efter forretningsordenen udrede og forberede sagen, herunder udarbejde en redegørelse, der forelægges udvalget med henblik på sagens afgørelse. 
Under the rules of procedure, an ad hoc committee can elucidate and prepare the case, which includes drafting a report to be presented to the committee with a view to ruling on the case.
Arbejdsgruppen finder, at der er tale om en vidtgående delegation af udvalgets behandling af sagen. 
The working group considers this to involve extensive delegation of the committees' treatment of the case.
Såfremt denne delegation skal være mulig, bør der være direkte hjemmel hertil. 
If such delegation is to be possible, there should be direct authorisation for doing so.
Det fremgår ikke af de gældende regler - eller af referatet af de sager, der har været forberedt af ad hoc-udvalg - hvor mange udvalgsmedlemmer og hvor mange eksterne parter, der indgår i de nedsatte ad hoc-udvalg. 
The current rules-or the minutes of the cases that have been prepared by ad hoc committees-do not show how many committee members and how many external parties are involved in the ad hoc committees formed.
6. UVVU'S BESLUTNINGER OG DERES IMPLEMENTERING 
6. DCSD'S DECISIONS AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION
Da det både for klager og den indklagede er belastende, at en sag verserer, bør det prioriteres meget højt, at der sker en effektiv og hurtig sagsbehandling. 
As it is onerous for complainant and defendant alike to have a case pending, top priority should be assigned to having cases dealt with fast and efficiently.
Hvad enten UVVU's beslutning går ud på at kende forskning uredelig eller at frikende for uredelighed, kan såvel klageren som den indklagede forvente, at beslutningen er vel begrundet. 
Whether DCSD's decision involves adjudging research dishonest or acquitting the defendant of dishonesty, both complainant and defendant are entitled to expect the decision to be well grounded.
Det kræver, at konklusionen er en entydig og logisk korrekt følge af de anvendte præmisser og deres anvendelse på de fremfundne faktiske oplysninger. 
This calls for the conclusion to be a clear-cut and logically correct consequence of the premises applied and of their application to the factual information retrieved.
En forskers handlinger må kun kunne karakteriseres som uredelige, såfremt handlingerne lader sig indordne under de i definitionen opstillede generelle kategorier. 
It must only be possible to characterise a researcher's actions as dishonest if those actions are classifiable under the general categories listed in the definition.
En eventuel stillingtagen til god videnskabelig skik kan anføres i afgørelsens præmisser. 
Any stance taken on good scientific practice can be stated in the premises of the ruling.
Det anbefales, at der opstilles regler for afgørelsens indhold, der efter arbejdsgruppen som minimum må indeholde: 
It is recommended to establish rules governing the content of the ruling; according to the working group, these must contain a minimum of:
• resumé af den indgivne klage og eventuelle andre partsindlæg, 
• summary of the complaint lodged and any other pleas by either party,
• oplysning om, hvilke skridt UVVU har taget til undersøgelse, 
• information as to the steps taken by DCSD in the investigation,
• resumé af indstilling fra eventuelt ad hoc udvalg, 
• summary of recommendations from the ad hoc committees, if any
• redegørelse for eventuelle eksterne vurderinger i sagen med tydelig 
• report on any external evaluations in the case, clearly stating sources and
• udvalgets præmisser og udvalgets afgørelse 
• the committee's premises and the committee's ruling.
Enstemmighed, flertalsbeslutning og dissens 
Unanimity, majority decision and dissent
4 opstiller enstemmighed som idealet for UVVU's beslutninger. 
4 of the Executive Order sets forth unanimity as the ideal for DCSD's decisions.
Heri kan arbejdsgruppen erklære sig enig. 
The working group concurs in this.
Men man må dog - som det også er gjort i den gældende bekendtgørelse - åbne mulighed for, at afgørelsen kan fremgå ved almindelig flertalsbeslutning, selv om en sådan beslutningsform ikke kan være ønskværdig. 
As done in the current order too, however, some mechanism must also be provided for enabling a ruling to be indicated by means of an ordinary majority decision, even though such a form of decision-making may not be desirable.
Da en flertalsbeslutning nødvendigvis må afspejle en væsentlig uenighed i UVVU om uredelighedsspørgsmål, bør der i modsætning til nu, være krav om, at dissenser altid fremgår af beslutningen. 
Since a majority decision must of necessity reflect material disagreement on the part of DCSD as to questions of dishonesty, dissenting voices should always be required to be shown in the decision-unlike now.
De mulige sanktioner 
The possible sanctions
Arbejdsgruppen kan tilslutte sig følgende fire sanktioner: 
The working group can endorse the following four sanctions:
1. Orientere den indklagedes arbejdsgiver, hvis vedkommende er ansat som for 
1. Inform the defendant's employer, if the party in question is employed as a
2. Henstille, at det pågældende videnskabelige arbejde skal trækkes tilbage. 
2. Recommend withdrawal of the scientific project concerned.
3. Orientere vedkommende offentlige myndighed, som fører tilsyn med områ 
3. Advise the relevant public authority that supervises the area.
Det synes ligeledes uklart, hvornår en ansættelsesmyndighed skal anvende den skitserede mulighed. 
Similarly, it seems unclear when an appointing authority is supposed to make use of the option outlined.
Den under 2 nævnte sanktion bør udvides, således at en henstilling om tilbagetrækning af et videnskabeligt uredeligt produkt ligeledes kan rettes til det forlag, dagblad etc., der måtte have modtaget dette med henblik på publicering. 
The sanction mentioned under 2 should be extended, so that a recommendation to recall a scientifically dishonest product can also be directed at any publishing house, daily paper etc. that may have received this with an eye to publication.
Arbejdsgruppen foreslår derfor tilføjet "og ikke publiceres": 
The working group therefore proposes adding “and not be published”.
Også med hensyn til UVVU's handlemuligheder efter behandlingen af en sag mangler den direkte beskrivelse af sager, der rejses med henblik på renselse. 
With regard to DCSD's courses of possible action after considering a case, there is also a lack of any direct description of cases raised with a view to clearing the defendant's name.
Der bør i lovens afsnit om sagers opståen og udfaldet tages højde for, at UVVU's afgørelse ligevel kan gå ud på, at der ikke foreligger uredelighed, og at dette meddeles sagens parter. 
The section of the Act on the origin and outcome of cases ought to take into consideration that DCSD's ruling may just as well involve the non-presence of dishonesty, in which event the parties to the case should be notified of this.
7. FORMIDLING OG OFFENTLIGHED 
7. DISSEMINATION AND FREE ACCESS
UVVU har hidtil overvejende arbejdet på en sådan måde, at såvel klagere som indklagede har kunnet regne med fortrolighed under sagens behandling. 
To date DCSD has worked predominantly in such a way that both complainants and defendants have been able to rely on confidentiality during the hearing of the case.
Partene høres løbende som angivet i den nuværende forretningsordens § 4. 
The parties are heard continually, as stated in Section 4 of the present rules of procedure.
Arbejdsgruppen mener, at disse principper fortsat bør være bærende for arbejdet i UVVU. 
The working group thinks these principles should continue to be the mainstay of DCSD's work.
I henhold til UVVU's forrretningsorden (§ 5) henstiller UVVU til parterne, at sagen behandles fortroligt. 
In accordance with DCSD's rules of procedure (Section 5), DCSD recommends to the parties that the case be considered in confidence.
UVVU har samme sted tilkendegivet at man ikke vil give udenforstående, herunder pressen, oplysninger om en verserende sag. 
In the same place, DCSD has indicated that it is not wished to provide outsiders, including the press, with information about any case in progress.
Denne indstilling synes UVVU at have modificeret en anelse i forbindelse med en ombudsmandsudtalelse og Videnskabsministeriets efterfølgende behandling (sag nr. 8, 2001). 
DCSD seems to have modified this attitude slightly in connection with an ombudsman's statement and the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation's subsequent consideration (case no. 8, 2001).
Ministeriet fandt det mest hensigtsmæssigt, hvis UVVU lod den indklagede forholde sig til behovet for hemmeligholdelse i de tilfælde, hvor der blev begæret aktindsigt under sagsbehandlingen. 
The Ministry would find it most appropriate if DCSD were to allow the defendant to make up his or her own mind on the need for non-disclosure in cases where access to documents was requested while the case was still under consideration.
UVVU kunne “se nytten af en sådan procedure, der vil sikre udvalget et mere nuanceret grundlag for sin stillingtagen til, hvorvidt man skal anmode parterne om at afvente udvalgets afgørelse, inden de informerer pressen.” 
DCSD could “see the usefulness of such a procedure, which will provide the committee with a more differentiated basis on which to construct its stance on whether to request the parties to await the committee's ruling before informing the press.”
Når beslutning er truffet i en sag, kan der efter de gældende regler anmodes om aktindsigt, og en sådan anmodning bør behandles efter de gældende regler om offentlighed i forvaltningen. 
Once a decision has been reached in a case, a request can be made for access to the documentation in accordance with the current rules, and such a request should be treated according to the applicable rules concerning access to public administration files.
Dette giver den interesserede offentlighed mulighed for at følge med i udviklingen på området. 
This gives any members of the public who are interested a chance to keep abreast of developments in the field.
Dette må opfattes således, at UVVU's beslutninger normalt ikke gøres til genstand for anden offentlig omtale på initiativ fra UVVU. 
This must be construed such that DCSD's decisions are not normally made the subject of any other publicity on DCSD's initiative.
I de - relativt mange - tilfælde, hvor der viser sig ikke at foreligge videnskabelig uredelighed, er den anonymiserede omtale i årsberetningen den eneste omtale. 
In the-relatively large number of-cases where there turns out to be no scientific dishonesty, the anonymised discussion in the annual report is the only reference made.
UVVU's forretningsordenen åbner mulighed for at fravige princippet om fortrolighed, såfremt “ganske særlige forhold tilsiger, at offentligheden gøres bekendt med identiteten på de involverede.” 
DCSD's rules of procedure open the way for deviating from the principle of confidentiality, where “exceptional factors require that the public be made aware of the identity of those involved.”
Det må antages, at et så vidtgående skridt skal tages af UVVU som kollegium. 
It must be assumed that such a wide-reaching step will have to be taken by DCSD as a collegiate body.
8. ANDRE AKTØRER OG DERES ROLLE 
8. OTHER PLAYERS AND THEIR ROLE
For det første kan domstolene få forelagt sager af denne type. 
Firstly, the law courts can be presented with cases of this type.
Man kan forestille sig, at uredelighed kan blive et tema eller sidetema i en retssag om immaterielle rettigheder. 
It is possible to imagine dishonesty becoming a topic or subsidiary topic in a court case about intellectual property rights.
Det må dog antages, at domstolene kun vil have en begrænset rolle i disse sammenhænge. 
In such contexts, however, the courts can be assumed to have only a limited role.
Af større praktisk betydning end domstolenes virke er den indsats, der gøres af AC's stående Udvalg til Beskyttelse af Videnskabeligt Arbejde (UBVA). 
Of greater practical significance than the courts' activities are the efforts of the Danish Confederation of Professional Associations' (AC) standing Committee for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (UBVA).
UBVA har udarbejdet en del generelt vejledningsmateriale for forskere, og udvalget yder også støtte med konkret rådgivning, eventuelt i forbindelse med en retssag om ophavsretlig krænkelse. 
UBVA has drawn up a good deal of general guideline material for researchers, and the committee also provides support in the form of hands-on advice, where appropriate in connection with legal proceedings over copyright infringement.
UBVA har fra tid til anden også henvist de forurettede til UVVU. 
From time to time, UBVA has also referred the injured parties to DCSD.
I USA og i en del andre lande spiller de videnskabelige selskaber en vis rolle i forbindelse med udarbejdelse af professionelle “Codes of Ethics.” 
In the USA and a number of other countries, scientific societies play some role in framing professional codes of ethics.
Denne mere aktive rolle, der nok har sammenhæng med, at de pågældende selskaber også ofte har karakter af fagforeninger, er ikke at finde blandt de mange danske videnskabelige selskaber og foreninger. 
This more active role, which certainly ties in with the societies concerned often doubling as trade unions, will not be found among the many Danish scientific societies and associations.
I universitetslovforslagets bemærkninger anføres det, at forskningsarbejdet skal “udøves under iagttagelse af de regelsæt m.v., der regulerer etiske spørgsmål samt med respekt for de etiske problemstillinger, der i øvrigt er knyttet til forskning”. 
In the explanatory notes to the draft bill on universities, it is stated that research work must “be conducted in compliance with the bodies of rules etc. regulating ethical questions and with respect for the ethical issues otherwise linked to research”.
Tilsvarende er det i bemærkningerne til sektorforskningsloven anført at "ved videnskabsetik tænkes både på forskningens redelighed og de spørgsmål, der varetages af de videnskabsetiske komiteer, Etisk Råd og Dyreetisk Råd. 
By the same token, the explanatory notes to the Danish Act on Government Research Institutes state that “scientific ethics refers both to the honesty of research and to the issues espoused by the scientific ethical committees, the Danish Council of Ethics and the Ethical Council for Animals.
En række sektorforskningsinstitutioner arbejder inden for emnekredse, som f.eks. gen- og bioteknologi, hvor det er særligt vigtigt at holde sig videnskabsetikken for øje. 
A number of government research institutes work within spheres such as genetic engineering and biotechnology, where it is particularly important to keep scientific ethics in mind.
Arbejdsgruppen finder anledning til at pointere, at institutionernes selvstændige ansvar også må give dem adkomst til selvstændigt at forholde sig til, hvorledes de vil leve op til ansvaret, herunder hvorledes og i hvilket omfang man vil lade rådgivning om videnskabsetiske spørgsmål varetage af interne udvalg. 
The working group finds reason to emphasise that the independent responsibility of the institutions must also entitle them to take an independent stance on how they intend to live up to that responsibility, including how and to what extent it is wished to have advice on matters of scientific ethics overseen by internal committees.
Arbejdsgruppen er opmærksom på, at såkaldte “praksisudvalg” allerede findes ved flere institutioner, og det må forventes, at ordningen breder sig. 
The working group is aware of the fact that so-called “practice committees” already exist at a number of institutions, and that arrangement can only be expected to spread.
Et nærhedsprincip tilsiger, at mange forskningsetiske problemer bedst håndteres tæt på forskningsmiljøet. 
A principle of subsidiarity dictates that many problems of research ethics are best handled close to the research environment.
Omvendt kan det anføres, at det også er vigtigt, at der findes et uafhængigt organ som UVVU, da lokale udvalg af forskellige grunde ikke altid kan eller vil løfte opgaven. 
Conversely, it is worth stating that it is also important to have an independent body like DCSD, since local committees are not always able or willing to perform the task for a variety of reasons.
Under alle omstændigheder eksisterer der en udviklende relation mellem på den ene side den lokale “etikvogtning” og på den anden side UVVU. 
At any rate a relationship is developing between local “ethics watching” on the one hand and DCSD on the other.
Flere typer af relationer kan komme på tale, f.eks. at UVVU primært vil komme til at beskæftige sig med principielle sager samt de - relativt få - sager, hvor det er overvejende sandsynligt, at der foreligger uredelighed. 
Several types of relations will be admissible, e.g. with DCSD preoccupying itself primarily with cases of general public importance and the-relatively few-cases in which there is every probability of discovering the existence of dishonesty.