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  58
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 court concludes that Myriad’s work______.
选项 A、isn’t of much practical value
B、doesn’t involve creation of new elements
C、is too obvious to get legal protection
D、doesn’t reveal the structure of DNA
答案B
解析 第四段指出法庭对Myriad工作(将BRcAl和BRCA2分离)的论断：Myriad公司的发现非常重要，但即便是伟大的发现，若不含有“新的，有用的成分”也不能被授予专利。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。[B]选项正确，是法庭判断两项专利无效的主要原因。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/o6O4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)