英语翻译可能是这文章太抽象专业了吧 这短文有大用处 但是理解和书面翻译很变扭 求神人相助第一篇：Most readers

英语翻译
可能是这文章太抽象专业了吧
这短文有大用处 但是理解和书面翻译很变扭
求神人相助
第一篇：
Most readers agree that much of the
biomedical literature is badly written (Woodford,1967).The problem with most
biomedical research papers is that they lose the forest for the trees.The
extreme example is a paper that gives overwhelming details about what others
have found (“review of the literature”); exhaustive lists of variables measured
(generally written as an alphabet soup of abbreviations); a blizzard of data in
the form of means,standard errors,and P values; and
a meandering “discussion” of the data.No story is told; no message emerges.
But science is not data.Data are the raw material of science.It is what you
do with data that is science—the interpretation you make,the story you tell.
第二篇：
[A] A nosocomial infection was defined as one that was
clearly not present in the culture of any body fluid when the infant was
admitted,although it was
recognized that
virtually all infant colonization,andtherefore all infections,are nosocomial.
[B] In this sentence from a Methods
section,two acts of judgment are described:defining and recognizing.But who was
making these judgments is not stated.Moreover,the author has gone out of his
way to write the second point in a stiff,awkward,inelegant way:“itwas recognized that.”

Most readers agree that much of the
biomedical literature is badly written (Woodford, 1967). The problem with most
biomedical research papers is that they lose the forest for the trees. The
extreme example is a paper that gives overwhelming details about what others
have found (“review of the literature”); exhaustive lists of variables measured
(generally written as an alphabet soup of abbreviations); a blizzard of data in
the form of means, standard errors, and P values; and
a meandering “discussion” of the data. No story is told; no message emerges.
But science is not data. Data are the raw material of science. It is what you
do with data that is science—the interpretation you make, the story you tell.
大多读者都觉得很多生物医学论文写的很烂.问题出在他们只见树木,未见森林.一个极端的例子比如一篇论文举了无数细节来阐述别人的发现；列一堆实验结果；一堆数据（means, standard errors, P values应该是本专业相关的分析手法之类的楼主请自己斟酌）；然后东拐西绕地分析数据.没有story（story就是interpretation,这是作者的idea就保留了）；没有有效信息.科学不只是数据而已.数据是原始材料.关键是你如何用这些数据：你如何解读,你如何阐述.

[A] A nosocomial infection was defined as one that was
clearly not present in the culture of any body fluid when the infant was
admitted,although it was
recognized that
virtually all infant colonization,andtherefore all infections,are nosocomial.
Nosocomial Infection定义为一种感染,这种感染在初期接触前不存在体液中.虽然可以认为几乎所有的感染都是NI.（这句话怎么不大看懂呢,不好意思；呵呵,难怪要用这个做反例,小自恋一下）
[B] In this sentence from a Methods
section,two acts of judgment are described:defining and recognizing.But who was
making these judgments is not stated.Moreover,the author has gone out of his
way to write the second point in a stiff,awkward,inelegant way: “itwas recognized that.”
在这个句子中（就是指A句子）做了两个judgments,一个是定义,一个是辨别.但是谁定义的NI,文中没有说.另外,作者偏题地去做了第二个点阐述,结果这个judgment也写得死板和无趣.肿么写的?it was recognized that . . .