2. 考研
  3. Are human genes patentable? It would seem a simple question. But it has been the subject of years of litigation, academic head-s

Are human genes patentable? It would seem a simple question. But it has been the subject of years of litigation, academic head-s

admin2013-09-16  44
问题     Are human genes patentable? It would seem a simple question. But it has been the subject of years of litigation, academic head-scratching and thunderous debates between some executives who say such patents propel innovation and others who say they curb it. All this culminated today with a decision from the United States Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, its answer is "no".
    At issue are the patents held by Myriad Genetics, a company based in Utah, on two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. Mutations in these genes are linked to an inherited form of breast cancer. Myriad found the precise location of the genes on two chromosomes and sequenced them. The company’s patents have given Myriad the exclusive right to extract and isolate the two genes, administer tests for the mutations and create synthetic BRCA DNA.
    Critics, led by the American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU), have argued that the patents are unconstitutional. America’s courts have long held that "laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable", but are the "basic tools of scientific and technological work". Myriad and its allies countered that, in an era propelled by genomics, patents are necessary to drive future discovery.
    The Supreme Court waded into this difficult debate in April, when it heard oral arguments from both sides. The justices searched for analogies to make the biological debate simpler, settling on two: a baseball bat and medicinal sap from an Amazonian leaf. The court ruled that Myriad’s patents are invalid. The ruling reads a bit like an elementary science lesson, explaining the structure of DNA. Its conclusion is similarly straightforward. The justices conceded that Myriad had "found an important and useful gene, but groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy" the patent law’s requirements for "new and useful. .. composition of matter". In sum, a "naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and is not eligible for patenting merely because it has been isolated".
    The court limited its ruling. It held that synthetic DNA may be patented, as urged by the federal government in an amicus brief. Furthermore, it explained; "Had Myriad created an innovative method of manipulating genes while searching for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, it could possibly have sought a method patent. " The court also said that the ruling does not limit patents on new applications of knowledge about BRCA1 and BRCA2, nor does it stop the "patentability of DNA in which the order of the naturally occurring nucleotides has been altered. "
    Myriad has yet to issue a statement. Lawyers at the ACLU were excited. "Today, the court struck down a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation," said the ACLUs Sandra Park. "Because of this ruling, patients will have greater access to genetic testing and scientists can engage in research on these genes without fear of being sued. "
The justices use "medicinal sap from an Amazonian leaf" as an example of______.
选项 A、products of nature
B、biological debate topics
C、innovative uses of nature
D、elementary scientific discoveries
答案A
解析 根据题干中的名称关键词medicinal sap from an Amazonian leaf定位到第四段.上文(第三段)介绍反对者(法院支持方)对BRCA1和BRCA2两项基因专利的看法：两项专利不合宪法(宪法规定自然现象不可授予专利)。例子所在段(第四段)指出，最高法院为了使这场争论相对简单，参照了类似案件(“棒球棒案”和“亚马逊叶子药液案”)并最终裁定两项基因专利无效：DNA片段是自然的产物，不应该只是因为把它分离出来就获得专利。可见，法官意在参照“亚马逊叶子药液案”，说明BRCA1和BRCA2和亚马逊叶子药液一样，都是自然产物，故不应受到专利保护，[A]选项正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/v5YRFFFM
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)