natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
- Det er vigtigt at støtte netop denne forskning i Grønland, fordi den grønlandske befolkning bliver påvirket direkte af forandringerne. 
- It is particularly important to support this research in Greenland, because Greenland's population is directly affected by the changes.
Samtidig vil det sikre, at dansk og grønlandsk klimaforskning kan få en endnu mere markant og fremskudt rolle i fremtiden, siger videnskabsminister Helge Sander. 
At the same time it will ensure that climate research in Denmark and Greenland can play an even more prominent role in the future, says Science Minister Helge Sander.
I samarbejde med landsstyremedlem Tommy Marø har videnskabsministeren og bevillingen fra globaliseringspuljen skabt forudsætningerne for, at Danmark og Grønland fortsat kan give et vigtigt bidrag til forskningen i klimaændringerne og deres konsekvenser for naturen og samfundet i de arktiske egne. 
Jointly with Tommy Marø, who is Greenland's Minister for Research, the Danish Science Minister and the grant from the globalisation pool have provided the basis for Denmark and Greenland being able to continue their important contributions to research into climate changes and the ensuing consequences to nature and communities in the Arctic.
På Grønland er landsstyremedlem for forskning Tommy Marø meget glad for at få et nyt klimaforskningscenter til Nuuk: 
In Greenland, Tommy Marø is very glad to see a new climate research centre being placed in Nuuk:
- I Grønland er vi meget glade for at huse dette klimaforskningscenter. 
- In Greenland we are very pleased to host this climate research centre.
Forhåbentlig vil det finde løsninger på mange af de udfordringer, som vi måske snart kommer til at opleve, siger Tommy Marø. 
I hope that it will find solutions to many of the challenges that we may soon have to face, says Tommy Marø.
Grønland bidrager også til finansieringen af det nye klimaforskningscenter. 
Greenland also contributes to financing the new climate research centre.
Blandt andet med kontorfaciliteter på Grønlands Naturinstitut i Nuuk, siger Tommy Marø. 
For instance, we have made office facilities available at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in Nuuk, says Tommy Marø.
Centrets chef, professor Søren Rysgaard har i de seneste fire år været professor på Grønlands Naturinstitut i Nuuk og har allerede etableret et blomstrende forskningsmiljø dér. 
The Director of the Centre, Søren Rysgaard, has been professor at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in Nuuk for the last four years and has already established a flourishing research environment there.
Han vil fortsat have kontor på Naturinstituttet. 
He will still have an office at the Institute of Natural Resources.
Udover centerchefen bliver der ansat en professor eller lektor inden for samfundsvidenskaberne med tilknytning til Ilisimatusarfik, Grønlands Universitet, og derefter er forventningen, at der bliver sat fem-otte nye forskningsprojekter i gang. 
In addition to the Centre Director, a professor or associate professor within the social sciences will be appointed, attached to Ilisimatusarfik, Greenland's university, and subsequently it is expected that five to eight new research projects will be launched.
Landstyremedlem for forskning i Grønland Tommy Marø kan kontaktes på tlf. 
Greenland's Minister for Research, Tommy Marø, can be contacted on tel.
Professor Søren Rysgaard, Grønlands Naturinstitut, kan kontaktes på tlf. 
Professor Søren Rysgaard, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, can be contacted on tel.
+299 36 12 00, email rysgaard@natur.gl . 
+299 36 12 00, e-mail rysgaard@natur.gl .
Sager behandlet i 2008 
Cases considered in 2008
Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed (UVVU) afgiver hermed sin årsberetning for 
The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) hereby present their annual review for
Hvert af de tre udvalg i UVVU har i 2008 behandlet én sag. 
Each of the three committees of the DCSD has in 2008 processed one case.
I sagen, som blev indbragt for Udvalget vedrørende videnskabelig uredelighed for natur-, teknologi og produktionsvidenskabelig forskning (UNTPF) 
In the case brought before the Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for Research in Natural, Technological and Manufacturing Sciences (UNTPF)
3, blev det udtalt, at indklagede havde udvist forsætlig eller groft uagtsom videnskabelig uredelighed, jf. bekendtgørelsens § 2, nr. 1, navnlig i form af uoplyst konstruktion af data eller substitution med fiktive data, hvilket havde medført en utilbørlig vildledning om egen videnskabelige indsats. 
3, it was indicated that the defendant had displayed wilful or grossly negligent scientific dishonesty, cf. section 2, no. 1 of the executive order, especially in the form of undisclosed construction of data or substitution with fictitious data, which had resulted in improper misguidance about own scientific efforts.
I 2008 blev bekendtgørelsen om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed ændret. 
In 2008, the executive order on the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty was amended.
Med ændringen blev UVVU s definition af videnskabelig uredelighed præciseret 
With the amendment, the DCSD s definition of scientific dishonesty was specified
4, således at der ved videnskabelig uredelighed nu forstås forfalskning, plagiering og andre alvorlige brud på god videnskabelig praksis, som er begået forsætligt eller groft uagtsomt ved planlægning, gennemførelse eller rapportering af forskningsmæssige resultater. 
4, so that scientific dishonesty now means falsification, plagiarism and other serious violation of good scientific practice which has been committed wilfully or grossly negligent by planning, performing or reporting of research results.
Ændringen af bekendtgørelsen medfører endvidere, at det ikke længere er et krav, at klageren er part i sagen i forvaltningsretlig forstand 
The amendment of the executive order furthermore means that it is no longer a requirement for the complainant to be party to the case in administrative terms
5. Det er derfor ikke længere et krav, at klageren har en væsentlig individuel retlig interesse i den konkrete sag for at indbringe den for UVVU. 
5. Accordingly, it is no longer a requirement for the complainant to have significant individual lawful interest in the actual case in order to bring it before the DCSD.
Den personkreds, som nu kan indgive klager til UVVU, er med andre ord blevet bredere. 
The circle of people which may now bring cases before the DCSD has in other words been extended.
Endvidere har UVVU fået udvidet sine sanktionsbeføjelser til at omfatte muligheden for at underrette tilskudsgiver, hvis der er tale om, at udvalgene har konstateret, at der foreligger videnskabelig uredelighed i en ansøgning om tilskud fra offentlige forskningsbevillinger 
Furthermore, the DCSD has extended its sanctioning powers to comprise the possibility of notifying the contributor if the committees find that scientific dishonesty exists in an application for contribution from public research grants
Landsdommer Poul Lodberg, har været formand indtil den 1. september 2008. 
High Court Judge Poul Lodberg was Chairman until 1 September 2008.
Jeg ser frem til et godt og produktivt samarbejde med UVVU s medlemmer, suppleanter og sekretariat i 2009. 
I look forward to good and productive cooperation with the DCSD members, alternates and secretariat in 2009.
Formand for UVVU 
Chairman of the DCSD
Bestemmelserne, der er angivet i resuméerne, henviser alle til bekendtgørelsen om UVVU. 
The provisions indicated in the summaries all refer to the executive order on the DCSD.
I august 2006 klagede en navngiven person til Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed (UVVU) over en anden navngiven person for videnskabelig uredelighed i form af plagiering, jf. bekendtgørelsen om UVVU § 2. 
In August 2006, a named person complained to the DCSD about another named person for scientific dishonesty in the form of plagiarism, cf. section 2 of the executive order on the DCSD.
Den indklagede havde i et tidsskrift publiceret en artikel, som efter klagers opfattelse var skrevet af efter klagers afhandling. 
The defendant had published an article in a journal which according to the complainant had been copied from the complainant s thesis.
Klager mente, at indklagede ikke havde henvist til afhandlingen, og at indklagede fremstillede indholdet af artiklen som sit eget. 
According to the complainant, the defendant had not referred to the thesis and the defendant presented the contents of the article as his own.
Indklagede oplyste, at der ikke var tale om plagiering, idet de oplysninger, indklagede havde anvendt i artiklen, var hentet fra retspraksis, og derudover fandtes i andre kendte juridiske værker. 
The defendant stated that no plagiarism had taken place as the information used by the defendant in the article had been obtained from legal usage and furthermore was available from other known legal works.
Indklagedes opfattelse var, at de oplysninger, som blev benyttet, ikke var resultatet af klagers selvstændige forskningsarbejde i forbindelse med klagers afhandling. 
The defendant s opinion was that the information used was not the result of the complainant s independent research in connection with the complainant s thesis.
UKSF lagde til grund, at indklagede forud for udarbejdelsen af sin artikel var bekendt med klagers afhandling, og havde overværet forsvaret af afhandlingen. 
UKSF took into account that prior to the preparation of his article, the defendant was knowledgeable of the complainant s thesis and had attended his thesis exam.
UKSF lagde endvidere til grund, at der var tætte berøringsflader mellem indholdet af afhandlingen og indklagedes artikel. 
UKSF furthermore took into account that there were close areas of contact between the contents of the thesis and the defendants article.
Det relativt snævre emneområde, som afhandlingen og artiklen omhandlede, var behandlet i faglitteratur og praksisbeskrivelser, som måtte antages at være begge parter særdeles godt bekendt. 
The relatively narrow subject area processed by the thesis and the article was processed in scientific literature and practice descriptions which were to be considered very well known by both parties.
Uanset afhandlingens begrænsede offentliggørelse fandt UVVU det beklageligt, at indklagede i sin artikel ikke fandt anledning til at foretage en henvisning eller forholde sig til klagers afhandling. 
Irrespective of the limited publishing of the thesis, the DCSD found it regrettable that the defendant in his article did not consider it necessary to refer to or relate to the complainant s thesis.
UVVU fandt imidlertid ikke at undladelsen kunne medføre, at indklagede ved udgivelse af artiklen havde udvist en adfærd, der kunne anses som uredelig i bekendtgørelsens forstand. 
However, the DCSD did not find the omission of the defendant in publishing the article as being dishonest in terms of the executive order.
UVVU fandt således ikke, at der nogetsteds havde været foretaget afskrift. 
Accordingly, the DCSD did not find that copying had been performed in any place.
Der var ikke grundlag for at betvivle, at indklagede havde udført et selvstændigt arbejde med sin artikel. 
There were no grounds for doubting whether the complainant had performed an independent piece of work on his article.
I april 2007 rettede en forening henvendelse til UVVU. 
In April 2007, an association addressed the DCSD.
Klager var af den opfattelse, at denne konklusion ikke kunne underbygges af det af forfattergruppen anvendte datamateriale. 
According to the complainant, this conclusion was not supported by the data materials applied by the group of authors.
Ved en gennemgang af de to artikler kunne USF imidlertid ikke tiltræde klagers opfattelse. 
By review of the two articles, however, the USF did not agree in the complainant s opinion.
USF fandt ikke, at forfattergruppens artikel og konklusion indeholdt påstande om, at der var foretaget retsstridige begrænsninger i publikationsrettigheder. 
The USF did not find that the article and conclusion of the group of authors contained allegations of wrongful restrictions of publication rights having been made.
Artiklernes indhold var en faglig diskussion af, hvorvidt der forelå mulighed for, at sponsorer kan begrænse publikationsrettigheder. 
The contents of the articles were a professional discussion of whether there was a possibility of sponsors limiting publication rights.
USF bad klager om at præcisere klagen. 
The USF asked the complainant to specify the complaint.
Klager henviste i sit svar til, at datagrundlaget i undersøgelsen var ufuldstændigt. 
In his response, the complainant referred to the data basis of the study being incomplete.
Det fremgik imidlertid af artiklerne, at de var baseret på et nærmere angivet antal forsøgsprotokoller, der var sammenlignet med efterfølgende publikationer. 
However, it appeared from the articles that they had been based on a more closely specified number of trial protocols which had been compared to subsequent publications.
Forfattergruppen havde endvidere beskrevet det datamateriale, der var lagt til grund for undersøgelsen. 
The group of authors had furthermore described the data materials forming the basis of the study.
UVVU fandt derfor ikke anledning til en nærmere vurdering af indholdet i datamaterialet. 
The DCSD accordingly did not find reason for a more specific assessment of the contents of the data materials.
UVVU fandt ikke, at forfattergruppen havde handlet videnskabeligt uredeligt i henhold til § 2. 
The DCSD did not find the actions of the group of authors scientifically dishonest under section 2.
I februar 2007 indbragte en forsker en klage over en anden forsker ved den institution, hvor de begge var ansat. 
In February 2007, a scientist filed a complaint against another scientist at the institution where they were both employed.
Sagen blev behandlet i Udvalget vedrørende videnskabelig uredelighed for natur-, teknik- og produktionsvidenskabelig forskning (UNTPF). 
The case was processed in the Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for Research in Natural, Technical and Manufacturing Science (UKSF).
UNTPF behandlede klagen på baggrund af den konkrete indsigelse mod den nærmere angivne tabel, jf. § 2, nr. 1. 
The UNTPF processed the complaint on the basis of the concrete protest against the more closely defined table, cf. section 2, no. 1.
Indklagede oplyste, at der var tale om nogle regnefejl i nogle af de standardafvigelser, der var gengivet i tabellen. 
The defendant explained that the issue was some errors of calculation in some of the standard deviations repeated in the table.
Indklagede havde udgivet et erratum i et fagligt tidsskrift vedrørende tabellen. 
The defendant had published an erratum in a specialist journal relating to the table.
For at oplyse sagen gennemgik UNTPF en række specialer, som indklagede havde været vejleder på. 
In order to enlighten the case, the UNTPF reviewed a number of theses for which the defendant had been supervisor.
UNTPF fandt imidlertid ikke, at specialerne kunne belyse sagen. 
However, the UNTPF did not find the theses applicable for enlightening the case.
UNTPF bad derpå indklagede kommentere på nogle konkrete klagepunkter vedrørende standardafvigelserne i tabellen. 
Then the UNTPF asked the defendant to comment on some concrete points of complaint relating to the standard deviations of the table.
UNTPF fandt forklaringen, som indklagede gav for fejlene i tabellen utilfredsstillende. 
The UNTPF found the explanation provided by the defendant about the errors in the table unsatisfactory.
UNTPF var imidlertid enig i indklagedes påpegning af, at der også var begået fejl i standardafvigelser af samme kategori publiceret af andre forfattere ved brug af en forkert formel. 
However, the UNTPF agreed to the defendant s point that errors had also been committed in standard deviations of the same category published by other authors by use of an incorrect formula.
Imidlertid kunne fejlene i den pågældende tabel, med undtagelse af de værdier som var citeret fra en nærmere angiven reference, ikke tilbageføres til brugen af en forkert formel. 
However, the errors in the relevant table, with the exception of the values quoted from a more closely specified reference, could not to be attributed to the use of an incorrect formula.
For at oplyse sagen nærmere udarbejde UNTPF en analyse af tabellen, som indklagede blev bedt om at kommentere. 
In order to enlighten the case in further detail, the UNTPF performed an analysis of the table which the defendant was asked to comment.
Indklagede gjorde rede for, hvorledes standardafvigelserne i tabellen var beregnet. 
The defendant explained how the standard deviations of the table had been calculated.
Derpå forsøgte UNTPF at reproducere tallene i tabellen, men fandt fortsat uoverensstemmelser. 
Then, the UNTPF tried to reproduce the figures of the table, but still found discrepancies.
UNTPF konstaterede, at hovedparten af de angivne totale standardafvigelser i en bestemt spalte i tabellen var klart lavere, end det kunne forklares ud fra tallene i to andre spalter i tabellen, ud fra hvilke tallene blev påstået at være beregnet. 
The UNTPF stated that the majority of the stated total standard deviations of a specific column of the table were clearly lower than could be explained by the figures in two other columns of the table on which basis the figures had allegedly been calculated.
UNTPF havde i mangel af adgang til rådata ikke mulighed for at bestemme de præcise værdier. 
In lack of access to raw data, the UNTPF was not able to determine the precise values.
I to tilfælde var det dog muligt ved et algebraisk bevis at vise, at de opgivne tal ikke kunne være resultatet af en beregning. 
In two events, however, it was possible by an algebraic proof to show that the figures provided could not be the result of a calculation.
UNTPF var enige i indklagedes påpegning af, at der kan foreligge en vis korrelation mellem måleværdier i de enkelte kolonner. 
The UNTPF agreed to the defendant s point that a certain correlation existed between the measurement values of each column.
En sådan korrelation anfægtede imidlertid ikke gyldigheden af det algebraiske bevis for, at de opgivne tal ikke kunne være resultat af en beregning, og derfor måtte tallene være manipulerede. 
Such correlation, however, did not contest the fact that the validity of the algebraic proof of the figures stated were not the result of a calculation, and accordingly, the figures had to have been manipulated.
Konkret havde klager fremsat påstand om, at en betydelig mængde rådata ikke var medtaget i databehandlingen. 
Concretely, the complainant had claimed that a considerable amount of raw data had not been included in the data processing.
UNTPF havde ikke mulighed for konkret at afprøve denne påstand uden at rekvirere et omfattende sæt rå måledata. 
The UNTPF was not able to concretely test this allegation without requesting a comprehensive set of raw measurement data.
Dette afstod UNTPF fra blandt andet i betragtning af, at indklagede ikke længere var ansat ved den pågældende institution. 
The UNTPF refrained from doing so, among other things, as the defendant was no longer employed at the relevant institution.
UNTPF fandt dog ikke indklagedes stillingtagen til beskyldningen konkret nok til, at UNTPF kunne afvise den. 
However, UNTPF did not find the defendant s attitude towards the allegations sufficiently concrete for the UNTPF to be able to reject it
UNTPF fandt hverken i indklagedes erratum eller sagskorrespondancen en forklaring på, hvordan de totale standardafvigelser i tabellen var fremkommet. 
Neither in the defendant s erratum nor in the case correspondence did the UNTPF find an explanation of how the total standard deviations of the table had appeared.
Efter UNTPF s efterprøvning af standardafvigelserne, måtte det konkluderes, at mindst to af de i tabellen rapporterede tal ikke kunne være resultat af en beregning. 
After the UNTPF s testing of the standard deviations, it was to be concluded that at least two of the figures reported in the table could not be the result of a calculation.
UNTPF s kritik rettede sig imidlertid imod det faktum, at der var indføjet tal, der ikke stammede fra hverken målinger eller beregninger. 
The critique of the UNTPF, however, aimed at the fact that figures had been added which did not result from neither measurements nor calculations.
Indklagede havde endvidere forklaret, at forskellen mellem forventede tal og de tal, der var anført i tabellen, var så lille, at fejlen nemt kunne overses. 
The defendant had also explained that the difference between the expected figures and the figures indicated in the table was so small that the error was easily overlooked.
Imidlertid var det forventede tal betragteligt højere end det, der var anført i det omtalte erratum, og fejlen var derfor ikke til at overse. 
However, the expected figures were considerably higher than the figures indicated in the said erratum, and therefore, the error could not be overlooked.
UNTPF fandt på baggrund gennemgangen og beregningerne af sagsmaterialet, at indklagede ved udgivelse af tabellen havde udvist forsætlig eller groft uagtsom videnskabelig uredelig adfærd, som den defineres i § 2 i bekendtgørelsen om UVVU, navnlig i form af uoplyst konstruktion af data eller substitution med fiktive data, jf. § 2, nr. 1, hvilket havde medført en utilbørlig vildledning om egen videnskabelig indsats. 
On the basis of the review and the calculations of the case materials, the UNTPF found that, by publishing the table, the defendant had performed wilful or grossly negligent scientific dishonesty as defined in section 2 of the executive order on the DSCD, especially in the form of undisclosed construction of data or substitution by fictitious data, cf. section 2, no. 1, which had resulted in improper misguidance of own scientific efforts.
I sine henvendelser kritiserede klager endvidere en række udtalelser fra forskellige navngivne personer vedrørende behandling af den nærmere angivne sygdom med det nærmere angivne lægemiddel, herunder en artikel om forebyggelse af den pågældende sygdom skrevet af en navngiven professor. 
In his inquiry, the complainant also criticised a number of statements from different named persons relating to treatment of the more closely defined decease with the more closely defined pharmaceutical, including an article on prevention of the said decease written by a named professor.
Henvendelserne drejede sig ikke om anmeldelse af videnskabelig uredelighed i et konkret videnskabeligt produkt, som begrebet er defineret i § 2 i bekendtgørelsen om UVVU. 
The inquiries did not concern report of scientific dishonesty in a concrete scientific product as the concept has been defined in section 2 of the executive order on the DCSD.
UVVU havde i øvrigt ikke kompetence til at vurdere holdbarheden af generelle råd og anbefalinger om kost og sundhed. 
The DCSD has no jurisdiction to assess the validity of general advice and recommendations about food and health.
UVVU bemærkede endvidere, at UVVU ikke havde kompetence til at tage stilling til afslag på optagelse i det nærmere angivne sundhedsfaglige selskab. 
The DCSD furthermore noted that the DCSD has no competence to decide upon rejections of acceptance in the more closely defined health care society.
Personen oplyste i sin henvendelse, at han ikke var videnskabeligt uddannet inden for det fagområde, artiklen vedrørte. 
The accusations had been made in connection with a cultural scientific article which the relevant person had printed in a journal.
I forbindelse med personalesagen havde klager tidligere henvendt sig til UVVU for at blive renset for beskyldninger om videnskabelig uredelighed i forbindelse med hans forskningsprojekt. 
In connection with the staff case, the complainant had previously addressed the DCSD to be cleared of accusations of scientific dishonesty in connection with his research project.
UVVU havde ikke fundet grundlag for at betegne hans arbejde som værende videnskabeligt uredeligt. 
The DCSD had found no basis for indicating his work as being scientifically dishonest.