Text 3

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 2012 a judge ruled that genes were unpatentable. Executives were violently agitated. The Biotechnology Industry Organization (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 personalized 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 task­force 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 unlikely 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 lawyers 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.

31. It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that the biotech companies would like________.

[A] their executives to be active                            

[B] judges to rule out gene patenting

[C] genes to be patentable                                 

[D] the BIO to issue a warning

32. Those who are against gene patents believe that________.

[A] genetic tests are not reliable                            

[B] only man­made products are patentable

[C] patents on genes depend much on innovation               

[D] courts should restrict access to genetic tests

33. According to Hans Sauer, companies are eager to win patents for________.

[A] establishing disease correlations                         

[B] discovering gene interactions

[C] drawing pictures of genes                              

[D] identifying human DNA

34. By saying “Each meeting was packed”(Line 4，Para.6), the author means that________.

[A] the supreme court was authoritative                     

[B] the BIO was a powerful organization

[C] gene patenting was a great concern                       

[D] lawyers were keen to attend conventions

35. Generally speaking, the author's attitude toward gene patenting is________.

[A] critical   [B] supportive    [C] scornful     [D] objective

31.【答案】A

【解析】

这篇文章选自The Scientist,文章题目是The Evolution of Credibility。文章第一段第二句话提到"But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route."，即在每天的科学实践中，发现所遵循的规律是模棱两可和复杂的。A项uncertainty and complexity 是对文中ambiguous and complicated的同义替换，所以为正确答案。

B项是利用文中最后一句话的干扰"Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound"，这句话是说"有误解和自我欺骗的可能"，从而导致了科学发现的模棱两可和复杂性;C项和D项是受文章第一句话的干扰，但是第一句同时提出只有"在理想中(in the idealized version of ...)，科学发现才能够很客观。

32.【答案】B

【解析】

第二段第二句中提到"But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to...",其中it指的是将科学发现获得公众可信度的过程。接下来的第四句话具体讲到了这个过程："through which the individual researcher's me, here, now becomes the community's anyone, anywhere, anytime."，即要经历从个人到集体的过程，需要每个人共同的努力，故答案为B。

33.【答案】B

【解析】

本段第三句话中提到"Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries"，即"研究者需要在科学团体复杂的社会结构中实现科学发现"，在这句话的后面有一个分号，分号后面的三个短句分别解释了在科学团体中不同身份的人所做的不同工作，如新闻编辑者和评论家需要控制科学发现公开的过程,而另外一些科学家需要同过新的发现来证明已有的发现等。除此之外，最后一句话"transform an individual's discovery claim into the community's credible discovery"即将个人的发现转换为集体可信的科学发现，故答案为B，即科学发现获得公众的可信度需要集体的努力和验证。

答案A是利用本段首句设置的干扰，属于主观臆断;答案C为干扰项目，以偏概全;答案D文中没有提及。

34.【答案】D

【解析】

第四段主要讲到了科学发现获得大众可信度的过程中面临的两个矛盾。Albert Szent-Gyorygi的观点主要针对第二个矛盾，即创新本身经常会引起怀疑。同时他认为科学发现需要"seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought"，即看到每个人都已经看到的，并想到别人没有想到的。这句话暗示了科学发现的过程需要有评判性思维，即我们应该去探求事物。故答案为D。

答案A与本段中讲到的第一个矛盾有关;答案B的过渡推断来自本段最后一句话，这句话的意思是，真正有创新的发现需要时间的验证来得到公众的认可。答案C文中没有提到，属于主观臆断。

35.【答案】C

【解析】

此题考察对全文主旨大意的准确归纳。从整个文章脉络来看，文章第一段指出任何发现最终的目标是使之客观化，然而此过程或多或少会受到不同的生活环境的影响;第二段指出这个过程需要公众共同的努力;第三段具体论述了不同的人在这个过程中需要完成的工作;第四段则提出了使科学发现获得可信度的过程中所遇到的两个矛盾;最后一段用Annette Baier的一句话总结了这个过程。由此可知，C项统领全文，为正确答案。答案A项与原文不符;答案B 是第二段中提到的一部分;而答案D只是对第四段的概括。