2. 考研
  3. Personalized medicine has proved an elusive dream. Biotechnology companies have claimed that by matching a person’s genetic make

Personalized medicine has proved an elusive dream. Biotechnology companies have claimed that by matching a person’s genetic make

admin2014-06-25  36
问题     Personalized medicine has proved an elusive dream. Biotechnology companies have claimed that by matching a person’s genetic make-up with specialised treatments, they can tailor drugs to maximise benefits and minimise side effects. Alas, researchers have discovered that the link between a given person’s genetic make-up and specific diseases is much more complex than they had hoped. The tantalizing vision remains out of reach.
    A rare exception has been the success that Myriad Genetics, an American firm, has had with two genes called BRCA1 and BRCA2. Certain versions of these genes, it has been shown, are associated with a high risk of breast and ovarian cancer. The University of Utah has patented the genes and licenses them to Myriad. The firm uses that exclusivity to create expensive genetic tests for cancer risk which only it offers for sale.
    The BRCA patents have long frustrated medical researchers and legal activists. They claim that the firm’s grip on the two genes unlawfully stifles both innovation and basic science. Given the history of patent rulings in America, that has been a fringe argument—until now.
    On March 29th a federal district court in New York made a ruling that, taken at face value, turns America’s approach to the patent protection of genes on its head. The core of the case was this question: "Are isolated human genes and the comparison of their sequences patentable things?"
    Until now, the answer had been "Yes". But Robert Sweet, the presiding judge, disagreed. He ruled: "It is concluded that DNA’s existence in an ’isolated’ form alters neither this fundamental quality of DNA as it exists in the body nor the information it encodes. Therefore, the patents at issues directed to ’isolated DNA’ containing sequences found in nature are unsustainable as a matter of law and are deemed unpatentable subject matter. "
    As a rule, patents are not granted for rules of nature or naturally occurring phenomena, but the A-merican patent office has allowed genes to be patented if they are isolated and "purified. " Perhaps no longer, if this decision is upheld. It is clear that the judge also has the history books in mind. His ruling cites Stephen Breyer, a member of America’s Supreme Court, who argued that "sometimes too much patent protection can impede rather than ’promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,’ the constitutional objective of patent and copyright protectioa "
    However, the majority of the Supreme Court did not agree with Justice Breyer. Dianne Nicol, a professor of law, observes that "this case turns on whether an isolated gene sequence has markedly different characteristics from a gene that occurs in the human body. The judge in this case has said it does not have different characteristics but it will be interesting to see if the higher courts agree with that. "
It can be concluded that the focus of "patenting BCRA genes" is whether these genes are______.
选项 A、isolated
B、natural
C、medically valuable
D、cancer-causing
答案B
解析 由第四段可知，Robert Sweet法官判决“基因不应受到专利保护”的根据是：分离基因的序列和自然存在的基因无异。第五段指出：一般来讲自然规则或自然现象不应授予专利，但专利局一直允许被分离或提取的自然DNA获得专利。Sweet认为分离出来的基因和自然的基因本质一样。所以分离基因就是自然基因。第七段指出Dianne Nicol的评论：这个案子关注的是“被分离的基因序列是否与人身上的基因有着明显不同的特性”，即是否”被分离的基因“属自然现象。故[B]选项正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/DQK4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)