单选题 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 wererelieved, 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 ease 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 genomeviolates 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.

单选题 It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that the biotech companies would like ______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】细节题。由第一段第三、四句可知，一名法官裁定基因不具有专利性，高管们因此狂躁不安，由此可知，生物技术公司希望基因能够获得专利，故A项“基因具有专利性”为正确答案。
单选题 Those who are against gene patents believe that ______.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】细节题。根据题干中的Those who are against gene patents定位到第三段第三句。该句指出了批评人士反对基因专利的三点理由。第一个理由是：基因是自然产品，因此它不能被申请专利。也就是说，只有非自然产品才能申请专利，因此B项“只有人造产品才具有专利性”为正确答案。
单选题 According to Hans Sauer, companies are eager to win patents for ______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】细节题。根据题干中的信号词Hans Sauer定位到第五段第三、四句。第三句指出，各公司正在研究基因是如何相互作用的，以寻找它们之间的关联性。而Hans Sauer解释各公司渴望赢得专利权的目的是为了理清头绪(connecting the dots)，这与上句话提到的“相互作用和关联性”相呼应，故A项“探索基因间的相互作用”为正确答案。
单选题 By saying" Each meeting was packed" (Para. 6), the author means that ______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】语义题。理解：Each meeting was packed这句话的含义，关键在于对pack这个词的理解，pack原意为“打包，包装”，而在此句中的意思是“挤满，塞满”。即“每个会议都挤满了人”，从而反映了大家对基因专利的关注，故C项“基因专利是人们非常关注的问题”为正确答案。
单选题 Generally speaking, the author' s attitude toward gene patenting is ______.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】态度题。文章首先谈到基因专利的现状以及引起争议的问题。然后在第三段中引出反对基因专利的观点及其理由，并进一步提到在基因获得专利过程中遇到的实际问题。在第五段中还谈到公司渴望获得基因专利的目的是为了探索基因间的关联性，用来判断疾病的起因或者预测药物的功效。由此可看出，作者对于基因专利的描述是客观的，故D项“客观的”为正确答案。