natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det antages dog, at eksklusivaftaler gyldigt kan indgås, forudsat at følgende to betingelser er opfyldt: 
However, it is accepted that exclusive agreements can validly be concluded, provided the following two conditions have been met:
1) der skal være en klar tidsmæssig begrænsning for den periode, hvor der ikke kan indgås aftaler om lignende projekter med andre, og 
1) there must be a clear temporal limit to the period during which no agreements can be concluded with others on similar projects, and
2) institutionen skal kompenseres økonomisk for at påtage sig forpligtelsen. 
2) the institution must be compensated financially for taking on the commitment.
3. OFFENTLIGGØRELSE AF FORSKNINGSRESULTATER - INTERESSEKONFLIKT MELLEM UDEFRAKOMMENDE OPDRAGSGIVERS INTERESSE OG UNIVERSITETSFORSKERES INTERESSE 
3. PUBLICATION OF RESEARCH RESULTS - CONFLICT BETWEEN THE INTEREST OF AN EXTRANEOUS COMMISSIONING PARTY AND THE INTEREST OF THE UNIVERSITY RESEARCHERS
Generelt ved kontraktindgåelsen 
About entering into contracts generally
Den vanskelige konflikt mellem den udefrakommende opdragsgivers interesse i eneret til resultater og universitetets interesse i at udbrede forskningsresultater er, når det gælder samfinansierede forskningsprojekter, den konflikt, som er omtalt ovenfor i forbindelse med advokat 
In the case of cofinanced research projects, the difficult conflict between the extraneous commissioning party's interest in exclusivity and the university's interest in disseminating research results is the conflict discussed above in the con
Hans Juhlers problemkatalog, der tilsigter at inspirere kontraktkoncipister forud for eller i forbindelse med samarbejdsaftalens indgåelse. 
text of Hans Juhler's list of problems aimed at inspiring contract draughtsmen prior to or in connection with the conclusion of the cooperation agreement.
4. UENIGHED OM ET VIDENSKABELIGT RESULTAT 
4. DISAGREEMENT OVER A SCIENTIFIC RESULT
I en konkret kontrakt mellem et universitet og en amerikansk erhvervsvirksomhed fik universitetet indsat følgende vilkår: 
In a specific English-language contract between a university and an American business, the university managed to work in the following terms:
Dette spørgsmål har ikke noget med eneret at gøre, men om at have et fælles ansvar for forskningens lødighed og for en publikations videnskabelighed. 
This issue has nothing to do with exclusive right, but is about having joint responsibility for the value and merit of the research and for the scholarly nature of a publication.
UVVU fandt på sit møde den 28. november 2000 ikke at kunne tage stilling til et forskningsresultats "rigtighed". 
At its meeting on 28 November 2000 DCSD found itself unable to take a stance on the "authenticity" of a research result.
Opgaven med at udpege opmænd burde derfor rettelig ikke varetages af UVVU. 
By rights, therefore, the task of appointing arbitrators ought not to be undertaken by DCSD.
UVVU overdrog derfor sagen til Statens Sundhedsvidenskabelige Forskningsråd (SSVF), som har påtaget sig at udpege opmænd i den konkrete kontrakt. 
DCSD therefore assigned the case to the Danish Medical Research Council (DMRC), which undertook to appoint arbitrators in the contract in hand.
5. UVVU'S OPGAVER 
5. DCSD'S TASKS
Ifølge § 2 i bekendtgørelse nr. 933 af 15. december 1998 om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed har UVVU til opgave at behandle sager vedrørende videnskabelig uredelighed, der rejses ved klage. 
According to Section 2 of Danish Executive Order No. 933 of 15 December 1998 on the Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, DCSD's task is to deal with cases pertaining to scientific dishonesty filed in the form of complaints.
Bekendtgørelsen fastsætter i § 3, at der ved videnskabelig uredelighed tænkes på handlinger eller undladelser, hvorved der i forskning sker forfalskning eller forvridning af det videnskabelige budskab eller grov vildledning om en persons indsats i forskningen. 
Section 3 of the Order provides that scientific dishonesty is intended to refer to actions or omissions in research whereby falsification or distortion of the scientific message takes place, or gross misrepresentation about a person's involvement in the research.
For at kunne betegne en adfærd som videnskabelig uredelighed skal det kunne dokumenteres, at den pågældende har handlet forsætligt eller udvist grov forsømmelighed i forbindelse med forholdet, jf. § 3, stk. 
In order to be able to designate conduct as scientific dishonesty, it must be possible to document that the person in question acted deliberately or exercised gross negligence in connection with the circumstance, cf. Section 3, subs.
UVVU's egentlige arbejdsområde er sager, som rummer velbegrundet mistanke om videnskabelig uredelighed, f.eks. de forhold, som er beskrevet i bekendtgørelsen. 
DCSD's actual working sphere covers cases that include a well-founded suspicion of scientific dishonesty, e.g. the scenarios described in the Order.
uden påtale, hvis sagen i øvrigt behandles af UVVU. 
The purpose per se, then, is not to investigate contractual terms.
Der kan endvidere henvises til nogle væsentlige generelle betragtninger fra et ad hoc-udvalg, der for UVVU har behandlet en sag inden for det sundhedsvidenskabelige område. 
Reference can further be made to some essential general considerations from an ad hoc committee that has dealt with a case in the field of health science for DCSD.
Det skal dog præciseres, at oprindelsen til tvisten om forskernes ret til offentliggørelse her ikke udsprang af interessemodsætning mellem en udefrakommende erhvervsinteresse og forskermiljøet, men derimod mellem en forsker og det styringsorgan, der fordelte forskningsområder inden for et stort undersøgelsesmateriale. 
This needs to be qualified, however, in that the origin of the dispute over the researchers' right to publication did not originate here from a conflict between an extraneous commercial interest and the research environment but, on the contrary, between a researcher and the governing body that allocated research areas within a large array of investigative material.
Ad hocudvalget udtalte: 
The ad hoc committee pronounced:
1. Offentligheden må anses for at have en betydelig interesse i, at forskningsresultater ikke undertrykkes eller forsinkes unødigt, især hvis de har betydning for en mulig forebyggelse af alvorlig sygdom og for tidlig død. 
1. The public must be deemed to have a substantial interest in research results not being unduly suppressed or delayed, particularly if they are of importance to the possible prevention of severe disease and premature death.
Det gælder ikke mindst livsstilfremkaldte sygdomme og tidlig aldring. 
This applies not least to lifestyle-induced diseases and early ageing.
Dette synspunkt har også ligget bag den videnskabsetiske Rekommandation nr. 8. 
This was the point of view that also lay behind scientific-ethical Recommendation No. 8.
Motivet bag befolkningens positive indstilling og bidrag til sådanne banker er at støtte videnskabelige fremskridt i sundhedens tjeneste. 
The rationale for the positive attitude amongst the population and their contributions to such banks is to support scientific advances in the service of health.
indgående informationsbanker synes at give adgang til rutineetablerede medforfatterskaber ved de resulterende publikationer ("tilmelding") uden dokumentation for, at de "tilmeldte" har ydet den indsats, som UVVU's tidligere nævnte skærpelse af de såkaldte Vancouver-regler fra 1999 stiller krav om. 
quasi-proprietorial relationship with the three information banks involved seems to grant access to co-authorships routinely created for the resulting publications ("opting-in") with no evidence to document that such "optees" have invested the effort called for by DCSD's previously mentioned tightening of the so-called Vancouver rules from 1999.
3. Det bør også overvejes, om ikke den danske sundhedsfaglige forskerverden bør informeres yderligere om, at kontraktretlige aftaler om videnskabelige projekter ikke kan tilsidesætte gældende love, tilknyttede bekendtgørelser og rekommandationer, ligesom de ikke kan tilsidesætte UVVU's udmeldinger om karakteren af god videnskabelig praksis. 
3. Consideration should also be given to informing the Danish professional health research community in more detail that agreements under contract law on scientific projects cannot override current laws, associated executive and ministerial orders, and recommendations, any more than they can override DCSD's official input about the nature of good scientific practice.
4. Lov om opfindelser ved offentlige forskningsinstitutioner med kommentarer af Jens Schovsbo, Jurist 
4. Danish Act on Inventions at Public Research Institutions, with a commentary by Jens Schovsbo, Ju
5. Lov om arbejdstageres opfindelser (Lovbekendtgørelse nr. 131 af 18. marts 1986, som ændret ved 
5. Danish Act on Employees' Inventions (Consolidation Act No. 131 of 18 March 1986, as amended
lov nr. 130 af 26. februar 1992) 
by Act No. 130 of 26 February 1992).
BEHANDLEDE SAGER I 2001 
CASES CONSIDERED IN 2001
SAGER AFGJORT EFTER UNDERSØGELSE 
CASES RULED ON FOLLOWING INVESTIGATION
Sager overført fra 2000 
Cases carried over from 2000
Genoptagelse af sag om postuleret vildledning og forvridning af det videnskabelige budskab (Sag 5 i UVVU's beretning 2000). 
Resumption of case concerning postulated misrepresentation and distortion of the scientific message (Case 5 in DCSD's 2000 report).
Klagen blev indgivet til UVVU's Udvalg for naturvidenskabelig, jordbrugs- og veterinærvidenskabelig og teknisk-videnskabelig forskning. 
The complaint was submitted to DCSD's Committee for Natural Science, Agricultural & Veterinary Science and Technical Science.
Klageren fandt, at der var bevidst fejlagtige oplysninger i indklagedes ph.d.-afhandling om naturbeskyttelse. 
The complainant found that there was deliberately erroneous information in the defendant's PhD thesis on nature conservation.
UVVU traf afgørelse i sagen i september 2000. 
DCSD ruled on the case in September 2000.
For at en adfærd skulle kunne betegnes som videnskabelig uredelighed, skulle det imidlertid efter bekendtgørelse nr. 933 af 15. december 1998 om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed kunne dokumenteres, at forskeren havde handlet forsætligt eller havde udvist grov forsømmelighed i forbindelse med forholdet. 
In order for conduct to be able to be termed scientific dishonesty, however, in accordance with Danish Executive Order No. 933 of 15 December 1998 on the Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, it had to be demonstrable that the researcher had acted deliberately or exercised gross negligence in connection with the matter.
I september 2000 begærede klageren imidlertid sagen genoptaget. 
In September 2000, however, the complainant requested that the case be resumed.
På baggrund af en fornyet klage, hvori der indgik nogle faktiske forhold, der afveg fra dem, UVVU havde lagt til grund, blev sagen genoptaget. 
On the basis of a renewed complaint that included certain facts differing from those DCSD had taken as its basis, the case was reopened.
Indklagede, som fik forelagt klagerens anmodning om genoptagelse, erkendte, at der ved en fejl var opgivet et forkert tal i ph.d.-afhandlingen, og at det korrekte tal fandtes i en anden afhandling, han havde lavet. 
On being presented with the complainant's request for resumption, the defendant acknowledged that a wrong figure had been accidentally given in the PhD thesis and that the correct figure could be found in another thesis he had done.
Indklagede anførte, at fejlen ikke havde betydning for de konklusioner, der blev draget i afhandlingen, og at han ikke var opmærksom på fejlen ved forsvaret af afhandlingen i august 1996. 
The defendant stated that the mistake was of no significance to the conclusions drawn in the thesis, and that he had not been alert to the error when defending the thesis in August 1996.
UVVU's bemærkninger 
DCSD's comments
Som nævnt i den tidligere afgørelse bemærkede UVVU, at det skulle kunne dokumenteres, at forskeren havde handlet forsætligt eller udvist grov forsømmelighed, for at en adfærd kunne beskrives som videnskabelig uredelighed, jf. § 3, stk. 
As mentioned in the previous ruling, DCSD noted that it had to be possible to substantiate that the researcher had acted deliberately or exercised gross negligence in order to describe conduct as scientific dishonesty, cf. Section 3, subs.
2 i bekendtgørelse nr. 933 af 15. december 1998. 
2 of Order No. 933 of 15 December 1998.
UVVU fandt, at det lå uden for UVVU's beføjelser at vurdere kvaliteten i forskning. 
DCSD found that it lay outside DCSD's powers to evaluate the quality of research.
Udvalget bemærkede imidlertid, at den undladte kontrol af talmaterialet måtte karakteriseres som værende i strid med god videnskabelig praksis. 
The Committee did note, however, that such failure to check the statistical material could only be characterized as running counter to good scientific practice.
Fejlen måtte betragtes som væsentlig, da den ikke fremtrådte som åbenbar set i lyset af andre oplysninger i publikationen. 
The mistake had to be regarded as substantial, given that it did not appear obvious in the light of other data in the publication.
Sag om postuleret uberettiget tilegnelse af klagerens arbejde (Sag 6 i UVVU's beretning 2000). 
Case of postulated misappropriation of the complainant's work (Case 6 in DCSD's 2000 report).
UVVU's Udvalg for samfundsvidenskabelig og humanistisk forskning modtog i juni 2000 en klage, hvori klageren bad udvalget tage stilling til, hvorvidt en del af klagerens videnskabelige arbejde var blevet misbrugt i en endnu ikke offentliggjort artikel, der var skrevet af indklagede. 
In June 2000 DCSD's Committee for Social Science and the Humanities received a complaint in which the complainant asked the Committee to take a position on whether part of the complainant's scientific work had been misused in an as yet unpublished article that had been written by the defendant.
Udvalget for samfundsvidenskabelig og humanistisk forskning nedsatte et ad hoc-udvalg. 
The Committee for Social Science and the Humanities formed an ad hoc committee.
Ad hoc-udvalget anså det for godtgjort, at ideen om at skrive en videnskabelig artikel var kommet fra indklagede. 
The ad hoc committee regarded it as having been proved that the idea of writing a scholarly article had come from the defendant.
Udvalget fandt ikke belæg for at betvivle, at indklagede efterfølgende havde gennemført sine egne 
The Committee found no support for questioning that the defendant had subsequently performed his own data searches.
Der var for begge arbejders vedkommende tale om forholdsvis gængse problemstillinger, der søgtes belyst med velkendte standardteknikker. 
Both pieces of work involved relatively common problem issues which they sought to elucidate using well-known standard techniques.
Disse teknikker var i betydeligt omfang tidligere blevet benyttet af indklagede og dennes medarbejdere og var blevet videreudviklet af disse. 
To a substantial extent, these techniques had previously been used by the defendant and his co-workers and further developed by them.
En gennemgang af de seks punkter i klagerens præcisering af klagen viste, at det ikke kunne udelukkes, at indklagede gennem læsning af klagerens tekst var blevet påvirket i sin gennemførelse af undersøgelsen med hensyn til valg af data og præsentationsformer, men disse mulige påvirkninger kunne ikke at gælde originale videnskabelige ideer. 
An examination of the six points in the complainant's qualified complaint showed that there was no way of ruling out that, by reading the complainant's text, the defendant had been influenced in his execution of the investigation with regard to choice of data and forms of presentation, but these possible influences could not be said to hold true for original scientific ideas.
Problemstillinger af den type, klageren havde behandlet, var i rigt mål repræsenteret i litteraturen, herunder i den indklagedes tidligere arbejder. 
Problems of the type the complainant had treated were amply represented in the literature, including the defendant's previous projects.
Ad hoc-udvalget fandt derfor ikke belæg for, at den indklagede havde gjort sig skyldig i videnskabelig uredelighed. 
The ad hoc committee therefore found no evidence to show that the defendant had been guilty of scientific dishonesty.
UVVU fandt i det hele at kunne tiltræde ad hoc-udvalgets redegørelse for sagen og de anlagte vurderinger. 
Overall, DCSD felt able to endorse the ad hoc committee's account of the case and the evaluations adopted.
UVVU's afgørelse gik derfor ud på, at indklagede ikke havde gjort sig skyldig i videnskabelig uredelighed. 
DCSD's decision therefore read that the defendant had not been guilty of scientific dishonesty.
Sag om postuleret vildledning af det videnskabelige budskab gennem forvridning af resultater og konklusioner, citatfusk og manipulation med citater (Sag 7 i UVVU's beretning 2000). 
Case of postulated misrepresentation of the scientific message in the form of distortion of results and conclusions, misquotation and manipulation of quotations (Case 7 in DCSD's 2000 report).
UVVU's Udvalg for humanistisk og samfundsvidenskabelig forskning modtog i juni 2000 en klage fra en forsker over et afsnit i en bog, som en kollega havde skrevet. 
DCSD's Committee for Social Science and the Humanities received a complaint in June 2000 from a researcher about a section in a book that a colleague had written.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at der i det afsnit i den indklagedes bog, hvor klagerens undersøgelse var refereret, var sket en forvridning af det videnskabelige budskab i klagerens ph.d.-afhandling. 
The complainant asserted that in the section of the defendant's book referencing the complainant's study, there had been a distortion of the scientific message in the complainant's PhD thesis.
Klageren anførte, at indklagedes gennemgang af hendes afhandling ikke alene forvred resultater og konklusioner, men også indeholdt citatfejl og manipulation med citater. 
The complainant stated that the defendant's review of her thesis not only distorted results and conclusions but also contained misquotations and manipulation of quotations.
Det var udvalgets opfattelse, at der i faglige diskussioner som den foreliggende må gives et betydeligt spillerum for alternative og kritiske fortolkninger af et videnskabeligt værk, både af konkrete tekststeder og af bagvedliggende positioner. 
It was the Committee's view that in specialist discussions such as the one in hand, considerable leeway must be given for alternative and critical constructions of a scientific work, both of concrete passages and of underlying positions.
En kommentator er heller ikke forpligtet til at godtage en forfatters eget signalement af sin videnskabelige position og har lov til undertiden at forholde sig kritisk og problematiserende til dette signalement. 
Nor is a commentator obliged to sanction an author's own description of his or her scientific position, being sometimes allowed to take a critical and problematizing approach to that description.
Som det er tilfældet med andre tekster, kan en læser af en videnskabelig tekst undertiden se sammenhænge i og konsekvenser af en tekst, eller konflikter og modsætninger deri, som forfatteren ikke er bevidst om. 
As is the case with other texts, a reader of a scientific text can sometimes see the correlations and consequences of a text, or inherent conflicts and oppositions of which the author is unaware.
Læseren har lov til at fremføre dette alternative synspunkt. 
The reader is at liberty to adduce this alternative point of view.
Dette kan give anledning til problematisering ikke alene af forfatterens konklusioner, men også af korrektheden af forfatterens redegørelse for sin egne bagvedliggende standpunkter og holdninger. 
This can give rise to the problematization not only of the author's conclusions but also of the authenticity of the author's account of his or her own underlying standpoints and views.
En sådan "dybdehermeneutisk" læsning kan ikke i sig selv karakteriseres som videnskabelig uredelighed. 
Such a "depth-hermeneutic" reading cannot per se be characterized as scientific dishonesty.
Ethvert referat indebærer en forenkling af det refererede og ethvert citat en udvælgelse inden for en teksthelhed. 
Every summary implies a simplification of that being referenced, and every quotation a selection within a textual entity.
For at en fortolkning eller et citat skal kunne karakteriseres som uredelig, kræves det yderligere, at det må anses for godtgjort, at der er tale om bevidst fordrejning af en andens resultat. 
Furthermore, in order to be able to characterize an interpretation or quotation as dishonest, it needs to be taken as read that it involves conscious distortion of another person's conclusion.
Udvalget bemærkede imidlertid, at undladelse af citatkontrol og fejlcitering er i strid med god videnskabelig skik. 
The Committee did note, however, that failure to check quotations and misquotation are at odds with good scientific practice.
Citatfejlen burde derfor ikke være forekommet. 
The quotation error should not have occurred, therefore.
At forlaget efterfølgende var villig til at rette fejlen for indklagede, kunne ikke føre til nogen anden vurdering. 
The fact that the publishers were subsequently willing to correct the error for the defendant could lead to no other judgement.
Afgørelsen gik derfor ud på, at der ikke kunne gives klageren medhold i, at indklagede havde gjort sig skyldig i videnskabelig uredelighed. 
The ruling was therefore that the complainant could not be upheld in his accusation that the defendant had been guilty of scientific dishonesty.
Derimod havde indklagede handlet i strid med god videnskabelig skik ved den manglende citatkontrol og fejlcitering. 
Conversely, the defendant had acted at odds with good scientific practice by failing to check quotations and perpetrating misquotation.
Sag om uretmæssig anvendelse af data indsamlet i forbindelse med et kvalitetssikringsstudie og forsømmelighed vedrørende medforfatterskab ved publicering af artikel i et fagligt tidsskrift (Sag 8 i UVVU's beretning 2000). 
Case involving wrongful use of data collected in connection with a quality assurance study and negligence relating to co-authorship when publishing an article in a scientific journal (Case 8 in DCSD's 2000 report).
Ad hoc-udvalget bemærkede i sin redegørelse, at UVVU i juni 2000 modtog en anmodning fra chefredaktøren for et videnskabeligt tidsskrift om at undersøge en tvist mellem klageren og de indklagede. 
In its report the ad hoc committee noted that in June 2000 DCSD received a request from the editor-in-chief of a scientific journal to investigate a dispute between the complainant and the defendant.
(Se sag nr. 16 i UVVU's beretning 2000.) 
(See case no. 16 in DCSD's 2000 report.)
Klagen blev herefter rejst i september 2000, hvor klageren anmeldte de indklagede for uretmæssigt at have anvendt data i den omtalte videnskabelige artikel i det faglige tidsskrift. 
The complaint was subsequently filed in September 2000, when the complainant reported the defendants for having wrongfully used data in the aforesaid scientific article in the scientific journal.
Ad hoc-udvalget præciserede i sin redegørelse, at sagen drejede sig om retten til at råde over data i et projekt, formuleret, initieret, styret og gennemført af klagerne (en styringsgruppe) med de indklagede som projektdeltagere. 
In its report the ad hoc committee specified that the case revolved around the right to access data in a project formulated, initiated, controlled and conducted by the complainants (a steering group) with the defendants as project participants.
Som resultat af kvalitetssikringsprojektet blev der udarbejdet en intern rapport alene med klagerne som forfattere. 
As a result of the quality assurance project, an internal report was drafted with the complainants as sole authors.
Adhoc-udvalget fandt, at de indklagede også burde have været medforfattere. 
The ad hoc committee found that the defendants should also have been co-authors.