(单词翻译:单击)
听力文本
From VOA Learning English, this is the Technology Report.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that businesses cannot control the rights to human genes in their natural state. Patients' rights groups are calling the decision a victory. The court, however, left room to protect the patent ownership rights on some other important biotechnology applications.
The court's decision was in a case involving the biotechnology company Myriad Genetics. The company had identified human genes that increase a woman's risk for breast cancer and ovarian cancer. The company applied for and was given exclusive rights over the use of those genes.
Attorney Sandra Park works with the American Civil Liberties Union. She says the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been allowing patents on some DNA for 30 years.
"What was problematic about these patents was that Myriad was able to use those patents to stop other laboratories from providing genetic testing, even when those other laboratories were using different methods."
Miss Park says that means that genetic testing for increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer cost more because of the lack of competition. And she says the gene patent prevented patients from getting a second medical opinion based on some other test.
But the Supreme Court has now rejected this type of patent, all nine justices agreed that because genes are products of nature, they can not be owned by one business.
Lisbeth Ceriani helped bring the case against Myriad. She is a breast cancer survivor who struggled to pay for Myriad's test.
"Our genes are not being held hostage by a private corporation anymore. We have the right to know that our doctor can look at our own genes to see what information is there."
Health activists say the ruling will lower costs and improve testing for breast and ovarian cancer, and other conditions for which companies have gene patents.
Myriad Genetics also created man made versions of the genes and patented those, too. These versions are called complimentary DNA or cDNA. For example, cDNA is used to make insulin to treat people with diabetes.
The Supreme Court said patents on such man made genes are permitted because cDNA does not exist in nature.
Jennifer Swize is a lawyer for Myriad Genetics.
"To Myriad, the decision is a win. For all practical purposes, companies like Myriad use the cDNA claims to do their testing."
Myriad's stock price grows after the Supreme Court gave its ruling on June, 13th, this suggested that investors saw the decision as a good one for the biotechology industry.
And that's the Technology Report from VOA Learning English, written by Onka Dekker. For more of our reports, visit our website at 51voa.com. We are also on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter at VOA Learning English. I am Avi Arditti.
文本为51VOA听写整理
译文属可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载
词汇解释
1.ovarian adj. [解剖] 卵巢的；子房的
The diagnosis was ovarian cancer.
诊断结果是卵巢癌。
2.hold sb hostage 挟持某人当作人质 ; 劫持作人质
The highjackers held two women hostage.
劫机者扣留两名妇女作人质.
3.diabete n. 糖尿病
In case of diabetes, physicians advise against the use of sugar.
对于糖尿病患者，医生告诫他们不要吃糖。
参考译文
这里是美国之音慢速英语科技报道。
美国最高法院最近判决，企业不能控制自然状态下的人类基因的权利。病人权利组织称该决定是一大胜利，然而法院却在保护其他重要生物科技的专利所有权申请上留下了空间。
法院的这项决定与生物科技公司巨数遗传公司的案件有关，该公司识别出能加大妇女乳腺癌和卵巢癌几率的人类基因。该公司申请并获得了这些基因的绝对使用权。
律师桑德拉·帕克就职于美国民权联盟，她说美国专利和商标局30年来一直在批准某些基因专利。
“这些专利存在的问题是，巨数公司可以利用这些专利，阻止其他实验室进行基因测试，即使这些实验室使用不同的方法。”
帕克小姐说，这意味着由于缺少竞争，对乳癌和卵巢癌增加进行的基因测试的成本要增加。她说，基因测试使得病人无法获得基于其他测试的第二种医疗意见。
但最高法院如今驳回了这种专利，9名法官都认为，基因是自然的产物，不能被任何企业所拥有。
利斯贝思·切里亚尼发起针对巨数公司的案子，她得过乳癌，所幸活了下来，她为支付巨数公司的费用费了很大的劲。
“我们的基因现在不再受哪个公司所挟持，我们有权利知道，医生可以看我们的基因，看里面有什么信息。”
医疗活动人士称判决将降低乳癌和卵巢癌以及被公司拥有基因专利的其它疾病的检测成本，并提高其检测技术。
巨数遗传公司还制造了人造基因并申请了专利。它们被称为互补DNA。例如，互补DNA被用于制造治疗糖尿病患者的胰岛素。
最高法院称，由于互补DNA在自然界不存在，因此允许申请这类人造基因。
Jennifer Swize是巨数公司的律师。
“对巨数来说，该决定是一大胜利。从实际用途来说，巨数等公司使用互补DNA权利进行他们的检测。”
最高法院6月13日宣布判决后，巨数公司的股价就上涨了，这表明投资者认为该决定对生物科技行业来说是件好事。
这里是美国之音慢速英语科技报道，作者Onka Dekker。登陆voaspecial.com获取更多报道，我是Avi Arditti。
