Part A: Reading Comprehension
Text 3
In 2010, a federal judge shook America’s biotech industry to its core. Companies had won patents for isolated DNA for decades—by 2005 some 20% of human genes were patented. But in March 2010 a judge ruled that genes were unpatentable. Executives were violently agitated. The Biotechnology Industry Organisation (BIO), a trade group, assured members that this was just a “preliminary step” in a longer battle.
On July 29th they were relieved, at least temporarily. A federal appeals court overturned the prior decision, ruling that Myriad Genetics could indeed hold patents to two genes that help forecast a woman’s risk of breast cancer. The chief executive of Myriad, a company in Utah, said the ruling was a blessing to firms and patients alike.
But as companies continue their attempts at personalised medicine, the courts will remain rather busy. The Myriad case itself is probably not over. Critics make three main arguments against gene patents: a gene is a product of nature, so it may not be patented; gene patents suppress innovation rather than reward it; and patents’ monopolies restrict access to genetic tests such as Myriad’s. A growing number seem to agree. Last year a federal task-force urged reform for patents related to genetic tests. In October the Department of Justice filed a brief in the Myriad case, arguing that an isolated DNA molecule “is no less a product of nature ... than are cotton fibres that have been separated from cotton seeds.”
Despite the appeals court’s decision, big questions remain unanswered. For example, it is unclear whether the sequencing of a whole genome violates the patents of individual genes within it. The case may yet reach the Supreme Court.
As the industry advances, however, other suits may have an even greater impact. Companies are unlikely to file many more patents for human DNA molecules—most are already patented or in the public domain. Firms are now studying how genes interact, looking for correlations that might be used to determine the causes of disease or predict a drug’s efficacy. Companies are eager to win patents for “connecting the dots,” explains Hans Sauer, a lawyer for the BIO.
Their success may be determined by a suit related to this issue, brought by the Mayo Clinic, which the Supreme Court will hear in its next term. The BIO recently held a convention which included sessions to coach lawyers on the shifting landscape for patents. Each meeting was packed.
31. It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that the biotech companies would like
32. Those who are against gene patents believe that
33. According to Hans Sauer, companies are eager to win patents for
34. By saying “Each meeting was packed” (Para. 6), the author means that
35. Generally speaking, the author’s attitude toward gene patenting is
答案与解析 (Answers)
31. [A] genes to be patentable.
解析：第一段指出，法官裁定基因不能申请专利（unpatentable）后，公司高管们“猛烈地感到不安（violently agitated）”，生物技术工业组织向成员保证这只是漫长战斗的初步阶段。这说明生物技术公司希望的正好相反，即希望基因是“可获得专利的（patentable）”，选A。
32. [B] only man-made products are patentable.
解析：第三段提到反对者的第一个主要论点：“基因是大自然的产物，因此它不能被授予专利（a gene is a product of nature, so it may not be patented）”。由此反向推理，他们认为自然界的东西不能申请专利，只有“人造产品（man-made products）”才能申请专利。这与美国司法部的摘要（分离的DNA分子和脱离棉籽的棉花纤维一样，都只是自然产物）观点一致，选B。
33. [A] discovering gene interactions.
解析：第五段指出，公司现在正在研究“基因是如何相互作用的（how genes interact）”，寻找可以用来确定疾病原因或预测药物疗效的相关性。随后 Hans Sauer 解释说，公司渴望为“把点连接起来（connecting the dots）”赢得专利。因此，“把点连接起来”指的就是前一句话中的发现“基因的相互作用（gene interactions）”，选A。
34. [C] gene patenting was a great concern.
解析：最后一段提到，BIO最近举办了一场大会，其中包括指导律师应对专利变化局势的专场会议。而“每场会议都座无虚席（Each meeting was packed）”。人们之所以挤满会议室，正是因为基因专利问题在业界引起了“极大的关注/担忧（a great concern）”，大家都想了解最新的局势，选C。
35. [D] objective.
解析：通读全文，作者一直在陈述事实。一方面报道了生物技术公司寻求专利的诉求和在法庭上的胜利（第二段）；另一方面也列举了批评者的三大论点以及司法部的反对意见（第三段）。作者没有表达个人的偏袒或批评，而是呈现了争议的双方和未来的趋势。因此作者的态度是“客观的（objective）”，选D。
全文翻译
2010年，一位联邦法官震撼了美国生物技术行业的核心。许多公司已获得了分离DNA的专利，长达数十年的做法。但2013年6月14日，最高法院一致裁定分离的基因不能申请专利，这一决定执行了法官罗伯特·J·布莱克的最初判决。布莱克曾裁定Myriad Genetics公司"仅仅"分离了乳腺癌和卵巢癌预后相关的基因，但并没有改变它们，因此不能申请专利。但该裁决遭到了一位公司律师的质疑，他认为可能有数以千计的分离DNA专利处于危险之中。布莱克回应道："但我还没有处理那些案件。"
虽然布莱克案可能还不是最终定论，但最高法院的裁决确实向前迈出了一步。公司不太可能再试图为分离的DNA序列申请专利。他们将不得不拿出一些"发明性"的应用。他们的产品必须确有一些特殊之处，而不是仅仅是一些大自然的产物。
但更大的问题是，是否可能禁止基因专利。
随着生物技术行业即将把个性化医疗变成现实，关于人类基因专利的漫长斗争可能会在法庭上持续多年，"一家领先的律师事务所表示。
Myriad案本身可能并非关键。批评者提出了三个异议：基因是自然的产物，因此不可申请专利；基因专利压制了创新而不是奖励它；而且像Myriad这样的专利垄断限制了基因检测的获取。最高法院的决定似乎支持这一论点。越来越多的公司似乎正在得出结论，即专利诉讼的代价远远大于它带来的回报。
核心长难句精解 (High-Light)
1. 宾语从句中的比较结构：
"In October the Department of Justice filed a brief in the Myriad case, arguing that an isolated DNA molecule “is no less a product of nature ... than are cotton fibres that have been separated from cotton seeds.”"
【解析】arguing 引导伴随状语，其后 that 引导宾语从句。从句中使用了 no less... than...（和...一样/不亚于）的比较结构。句意是：分离出的DNA分子和从棉籽中分离出的棉花纤维一样，都只是大自然的产物。
"In October the Department of Justice filed a brief in the Myriad case, arguing that an isolated DNA molecule “is no less a product of nature ... than are cotton fibres that have been separated from cotton seeds.”"
【解析】arguing 引导伴随状语，其后 that 引导宾语从句。从句中使用了 no less... than...（和...一样/不亚于）的比较结构。句意是：分离出的DNA分子和从棉籽中分离出的棉花纤维一样，都只是大自然的产物。
2. 形式主语与主语从句、宾语从句的嵌套：
"For example, it is unclear whether the sequencing of a whole genome violates the patents of individual genes within it."
【解析】it 是形式主语，真正的逻辑主语是 whether 引导的主语从句。句意是：对整个基因组进行测序是否会侵犯其中单个基因的专利，目前尚不清楚。
"For example, it is unclear whether the sequencing of a whole genome violates the patents of individual genes within it."
【解析】it 是形式主语，真正的逻辑主语是 whether 引导的主语从句。句意是：对整个基因组进行测序是否会侵犯其中单个基因的专利，目前尚不清楚。
3. 介词短语与定语从句：
"The BIO recently held a convention which included sessions to coach lawyers on the shifting landscape for patents."
【解析】which 引导定语从句修饰 convention。在从句中，动词不定式 to coach... 作 sessions 的后置定语。介词 on 表示“关于”，指出辅导的内容是关于专利局势的变化。
"The BIO recently held a convention which included sessions to coach lawyers on the shifting landscape for patents."
【解析】which 引导定语从句修饰 convention。在从句中，动词不定式 to coach... 作 sessions 的后置定语。介词 on 表示“关于”，指出辅导的内容是关于专利局势的变化。