|
|
In2010, 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 2012 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 Muriad Genetics could indeed
hold patents to two genes that help forecast a woman’s risk of breast cancer
.The chief executive of Mytiad, 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
Myriads 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 unlikely 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 lawyer on the
shifting landscape for patents. Each meeting was packed.
1. It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that the biotech companies would
like_____.
[A] their executives to be active
[B] judges to rule out gene patenting
[C] genes to be patentable
[D] the BIO to issue a warning
2. Those who are against gene patents believe that_____.
[A] genetic tests are not reliable
[B] only man-made products are patentable
[C] patants on genes depend much on innovation
[D] courts should restrict access to genetic tests
3. According to Hans Sauer , companies are eager to win patents
for_____.
[A] establishing disease correlations
[B] discovering gene interactions
[C] drawing pictures of genes
[D] identifying human DNA
4. By saying“Each meeting was packed”(Line 4,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
5. Generally speaking, the author’s attitude toward gene patenting
is______.
[A] critical
[B] supportive
[C] scornful
[D] objective
|
|
发表于 2017-8-6 14:04:42