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

[A]

genes to be patentable. 

[B]

the BIO to issue a warning. 

[C]

their executives to be active. 

[D]

judges to rule out gene patenting. 

32. Those who are against gene patents believe that

[A]

genetic tests are not reliable. 

[B]

only man-made products are patentable. 

[C]

patents on genes depend much on innovation. 

[D]

courts should restrict access to genetic tests. 

33. According to Hans Sauer, companies are eager to win patents for

[A]

discovering gene interactions. 

[B]

establishing disease correlations. 

[C]

drawing pictures of genes. 

[D]

identifying human DNA. 

34. By saying “Each meeting was packed” (Para. 6), the author means that

[A]

the supreme court was authoritative. 

[B]

the BIO was a powerful organisation. 

[C]

gene patenting was a great concern. 

[D]

lawyers were keen to attend conventions. 

35. Generally speaking, the author’s attitude toward gene patenting is

[A]

critical. 

[B]

supportive. 

[C]

scornful. 

[D]

objective. 

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。

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。

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。

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。