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 parented. 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 holb patents to two genss 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 indivi dual genes within it. The case may yet reach the Supreme Court. ASthe industry advances ,however,other suits may have an even greaterimpact.companies are unlikely to file many more patents for human DNAmolecules-most are already patented or in the public domain .firms are now studying how genes intcract,looking forcorrelations that might be used to determine the causes of disease or predict adrug’s efficacy,companies are eager to win patents for ‘connecting thedits’,expaains hans sauer,alawyer for the BIO. Their success may be determined by a suitrelated to this issue, brought by the Mayo Clinic, which the Supreme Court willhear in its next term. The BIO rtcently held a convention which includedseddions to coach lawyers on the shifting landscape for patents. Each meetingwas packed. 31.it canbe learned from paragraph I that the biotech companies would like----- A.their executives to be active B.judges to rule out gene patenting C.genes to be patcntablc D.the BIO to issue a warning 32.those who are against gene patents believe that---- A.genetic tests are not reliable B.only man-made products are patentable C.patents on genes depend much on innovatiaon D.courts should restrict access to gene tic tests 33.according to hans sauer ,companies are eager to win patents for---- A.establishing disease comelations B.discovering gene interactions C.drawing pictures of genes D.identifying human DNA 34.By saying “each meeting waspacked”(line4,para6)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.lawyer swere keen to attend conventiongs 35.generallyspeaking ,the author’s attitude toward gene patenting is---- A.critical B.supportive C.scornful D.objective