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 were relieved, 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 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 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 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 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】 C

【答案解析】[解析] 第一段是文章的主旨段，简明扼要道出基因专利法律纠纷的由来。2010年一位联邦法官颠覆“基因可以获得专利”先例，作出“基因不能获得专利”这一判决，激怒生物公司，引起轩然大波，一场基因专利战由此激发。生物科技产业组织(BIO)向其成员承诺，这仅仅是专利战的开始，他们一定会力争到底。题目的指向性很明确，问的是生物科技公司希望得到的结果。请考生把法庭的宣判放置一旁，专心寻找线索词“biotech company”，不难发现，他们希望的结果是基因技术应获得专利。因此C选项正确。

单选题 Those who are against gene patents believe that ______.

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】[解析] 第三段写基因专利纠纷的原因所在：生物公司致力于个性化药品的研究所带来的积极效应让法院对禁止基因专利犹豫不决。而反对基因专利的人们也有一大堆理由：基因是自然物，没有什么专利可言；基因专利会抑制创新；基因专利垄断会限制基因实验。答案在文章第三段第三句，此句与选项B为同义句。考生需找准信息句并注意正确选项与原文句子的同义词。因此B选项正确。