下載App 希平方
攻其不背
App 開放下載中
下載App 希平方
攻其不背
App 開放下載中
IE版本不足
你的 IE 瀏覽器太舊了 更新 IE 瀏覽器或點選連結下載 Google Chrome 瀏覽器 前往下載

免費註冊
! 這組帳號已經註冊過了
Email 帳號
密碼請填入 6 位數以上密碼
已經有帳號了?
忘記密碼
! 這組帳號已經註冊過了
您的 Email
請輸入您註冊時填寫的 Email,
我們將會寄送設定新密碼的連結給您。
寄信了!請到信箱打開密碼連結信
密碼信已寄至
沒有收到信嗎? 點這裡重寄一次
如果您尚未收到信,請前往垃圾郵件查看,謝謝!

恭喜您註冊成功!

查看會員功能

註冊未完成

《HOPE English 希平方》服務條款關於個人資料收集與使用之規定

隱私權政策
上次更新日期:2014-12-30

希平方 為一英文學習平台,我們每天固定上傳優質且豐富的影片內容,讓您不但能以有趣的方式學習英文,還能增加內涵,豐富知識。我們非常注重您的隱私,以下說明為當您使用我們平台時,我們如何收集、使用、揭露、轉移及儲存你的資料。請您花一些時間熟讀我們的隱私權做法,我們歡迎您的任何疑問或意見,提供我們將產品、服務、內容、廣告做得更好。

本政策涵蓋的內容包括:希平方 如何處理蒐集或收到的個人資料。
本隱私權保護政策只適用於: 希平方 平台,不適用於非 希平方 平台所有或控制的公司,也不適用於非 希平方 僱用或管理之人。

個人資料的收集與使用
當您註冊 希平方 平台時,我們會詢問您姓名、電子郵件、出生日期、職位、行業及個人興趣等資料。在您註冊完 希平方 帳號並登入我們的服務後,我們就能辨認您的身分,讓您使用更完整的服務,或參加相關宣傳、優惠及贈獎活動。希平方 也可能從商業夥伴或其他公司處取得您的個人資料,並將這些資料與 希平方 所擁有的您的個人資料相結合。

我們所收集的個人資料, 將用於通知您有關 希平方 最新產品公告、軟體更新,以及即將發生的事件,也可用以協助改進我們的服務。

我們也可能使用個人資料為內部用途。例如:稽核、資料分析、研究等,以改進 希平方公司 產品、服務及客戶溝通。

瀏覽資料的收集與使用
希平方 自動接收並記錄您電腦和瀏覽器上的資料,包括 IP 位址、希平方 cookie 中的資料、軟體和硬體屬性以及您瀏覽的網頁紀錄。

隱私權政策修訂
我們會不定時修正與變更《隱私權政策》,不會在未經您明確同意的情況下,縮減本《隱私權政策》賦予您的權利。隱私權政策變更時一律會在本頁發佈;如果屬於重大變更,我們會提供更明顯的通知 (包括某些服務會以電子郵件通知隱私權政策的變更)。我們還會將本《隱私權政策》的舊版加以封存,方便您回顧。

服務條款
歡迎您加入看 ”希平方”
上次更新日期:2013-09-09

歡迎您加入看 ”希平方”
感謝您使用我們的產品和服務(以下簡稱「本服務」),本服務是由 希平方 所提供。
本服務條款訂立的目的,是為了保護會員以及所有使用者(以下稱會員)的權益,並構成會員與本服務提供者之間的契約,在使用者完成註冊手續前,應詳細閱讀本服務條款之全部條文,一旦您按下「註冊」按鈕,即表示您已知悉、並完全同意本服務條款的所有約定。如您是法律上之無行為能力人或限制行為能力人(如未滿二十歲之未成年人),則您在加入會員前,請將本服務條款交由您的法定代理人(如父母、輔助人或監護人)閱讀,並得到其同意,您才可註冊及使用 希平方 所提供之會員服務。當您開始使用 希平方 所提供之會員服務時,則表示您的法定代理人(如父母、輔助人或監護人)已經閱讀、了解並同意本服務條款。 我們可能會修改本條款或適用於本服務之任何額外條款,以(例如)反映法律之變更或本服務之變動。您應定期查閱本條款內容。這些條款如有修訂,我們會在本網頁發佈通知。變更不會回溯適用,並將於公布變更起十四天或更長時間後方始生效。不過,針對本服務新功能的變更,或基於法律理由而為之變更,將立即生效。如果您不同意本服務之修訂條款,則請停止使用該本服務。

第三人網站的連結 本服務或協力廠商可能會提供連結至其他網站或網路資源的連結。您可能會因此連結至其他業者經營的網站,但不表示希平方與該等業者有任何關係。其他業者經營的網站均由各該業者自行負責,不屬希平方控制及負責範圍之內。

兒童及青少年之保護 兒童及青少年上網已經成為無可避免之趨勢,使用網際網路獲取知識更可以培養子女的成熟度與競爭能力。然而網路上的確存有不適宜兒童及青少年接受的訊息,例如色情與暴力的訊息,兒童及青少年有可能因此受到心靈與肉體上的傷害。因此,為確保兒童及青少年使用網路的安全,並避免隱私權受到侵犯,家長(或監護人)應先檢閱各該網站是否有保護個人資料的「隱私權政策」,再決定是否同意提出相關的個人資料;並應持續叮嚀兒童及青少年不可洩漏自己或家人的任何資料(包括姓名、地址、電話、電子郵件信箱、照片、信用卡號等)給任何人。

為了維護 希平方 網站安全,我們需要您的協助:

您承諾絕不為任何非法目的或以任何非法方式使用本服務,並承諾遵守中華民國相關法規及一切使用網際網路之國際慣例。您若係中華民國以外之使用者,並同意遵守所屬國家或地域之法令。您同意並保證不得利用本服務從事侵害他人權益或違法之行為,包括但不限於:
A. 侵害他人名譽、隱私權、營業秘密、商標權、著作權、專利權、其他智慧財產權及其他權利;
B. 違反依法律或契約所應負之保密義務;
C. 冒用他人名義使用本服務;
D. 上載、張貼、傳輸或散佈任何含有電腦病毒或任何對電腦軟、硬體產生中斷、破壞或限制功能之程式碼之資料;
E. 干擾或中斷本服務或伺服器或連結本服務之網路,或不遵守連結至本服務之相關需求、程序、政策或規則等,包括但不限於:使用任何設備、軟體或刻意規避看 希平方 - 看 YouTube 學英文 之排除自動搜尋之標頭 (robot exclusion headers);

服務中斷或暫停
本公司將以合理之方式及技術,維護會員服務之正常運作,但有時仍會有無法預期的因素導致服務中斷或故障等現象,可能將造成您使用上的不便、資料喪失、錯誤、遭人篡改或其他經濟上損失等情形。建議您於使用本服務時宜自行採取防護措施。 希平方 對於您因使用(或無法使用)本服務而造成的損害,除故意或重大過失外,不負任何賠償責任。

版權宣告
上次更新日期:2013-09-16

希平方 內所有資料之著作權、所有權與智慧財產權,包括翻譯內容、程式與軟體均為 希平方 所有,須經希平方同意合法才得以使用。
希平方歡迎你分享網站連結、單字、片語、佳句,使用時須標明出處,並遵守下列原則:

  • 禁止用於獲取個人或團體利益,或從事未經 希平方 事前授權的商業行為
  • 禁止用於政黨或政治宣傳,或暗示有支持某位候選人
  • 禁止用於非希平方認可的產品或政策建議
  • 禁止公佈或傳送任何誹謗、侮辱、具威脅性、攻擊性、不雅、猥褻、不實、色情、暴力、違反公共秩序或善良風俗或其他不法之文字、圖片或任何形式的檔案
  • 禁止侵害或毀損希平方或他人名譽、隱私權、營業秘密、商標權、著作權、專利權、其他智慧財產權及其他權利、違反法律或契約所應付支保密義務
  • 嚴禁謊稱希平方辦公室、職員、代理人或發言人的言論背書,或作為募款的用途

網站連結
歡迎您分享 希平方 網站連結,與您的朋友一起學習英文。

抱歉傳送失敗!

不明原因問題造成傳送失敗,請儘速與我們聯繫!
希平方 x ICRT

Tania Simoncelli:人類基因該有專利權嗎?」- Should You Be Able to Patent a Human Gene?


框選或點兩下字幕可以直接查字典喔!

It was an afternoon in the fall of 2005. I was working at the ACLU as the organization's science advisor. I really, really loved my job, but I was having one of those days where I was feeling just a little bit discouraged.

So I wandered down the hallway to my colleague Chris Hansen's office. Chris had been at the ACLU for more than 30 years, so he had deep institutional knowledge and insights.

I explained to Chris that I was feeling a little bit stuck. I had been investigating a number of issues at the intersection of science and civil liberties—super interesting. But I wanted the ACLU to engage these issues in a much bigger way, in a way that could really make a difference.

So Chris cut right to the chase, and he says, "Well, of all the issues you've been looking at, what are the top five?"

"Well, there's genetic discrimination, and reproductive technologies, and biobanking, and ... oh, there's this really cool issue, functional MRI and using it for lie detection, and ... oh, and of course, there's gene patents."

"Gene patents?"

"Yes, you know, patents on human genes."

"No! You're telling me that the US government has been issuing patents on part of the human body? That can't be right."

I went back to my office and sent Chris three articles. And 20 minutes later, he came bursting in my office. "Oh my god! You're right! Who can we sue?"

Now Chris is a really brilliant lawyer, but he knew almost nothing about patent law and certainly nothing about genetics. I knew something about genetics, but I wasn't even a lawyer, let alone a patent lawyer. So clearly we had a lot to learn before we could file a lawsuit.

First, we needed to understand exactly what was patented when someone patented a gene. Gene patents typically contain dozens of claims, but the most controversial of these are to so-called "isolated DNA"—namely, a piece of DNA that has been removed from a cell.

Gene patent proponents say, "See? We didn't patent the gene in your body, we patented an isolated gene." And that's true, but the problem is that any use of the gene requires that it be isolated. And the patents weren't just to a particular gene that they isolated, but on every possible version of that gene. So what does that mean?

That means that you can't give your gene to your doctor and ask him or her to look at it, say, to see if it has any mutations, without permission of the patent holder. It also means that the patent holder has the right to stop anyone from using that gene in research or clinical testing. Allowing patent holders, often private companies, to lock up stretches of the human genome was harming patients.

Consider Abigail, a 10-year-old with long QT syndrome, a serious heart condition that, if left untreated, can result in sudden death. The company that obtained a patent on two genes associated with this condition developed a test to diagnose the syndrome. But then they went bankrupt and they never offered it. So another lab tried to offer the test, but the company that held the patents threatened to sue the lab for patent infringement. So as a result, for 2 years, no test was available. During that time, Abigail died of undiagnosed long QT.

Gene patents clearly were a problem and were harming patients. But was there a way we could challenge them?

Turns out that the Supreme Court has made clear through a long line of cases, that certain things are not patent eligible. You can't patent products of nature—the air, the water, minerals, elements of the periodic table. And you can't patent laws of nature—the law of gravity, E = mc2. These things are just too fundamental and must remain free to all and reserved exclusively to none.

It seemed to us that DNA, the most fundamental structure of life, that codes for the production of all of our proteins, is both a product of nature and a law of nature, regardless of whether it's in our bodies or sitting in the bottom of a test tube.

As we delved into this issue, we traveled all over the country to speak with many different experts—scientists, medical professionals, lawyers, patent lawyers. Most of them agreed that we were right as a matter of policy, and, at least in theory, as a matter of law. All of them thought our chances of winning a gene-patent challenge were about zero.

Why is that? Well, the patent office had been issuing these patents for more than 20 years. There were literally thousands of patents on human genes. The patent bar was deeply entrenched in the status quo, the biotech industry had grown up around this practice, and legislation to ban gene patents had been introduced year after year in Congress, and had gone absolutely nowhere. So the bottom line: courts just weren't going to be willing to overturn these patents.

Now, neither Chris nor I were the type to shy away from a challenge, and hearing, "Being right just isn't enough," seemed all the more reason to take on this fight. So we set out to build our case.

Now, patent cases tend to be: Company A sues Company B over some really narrow, obscure technical issue. We weren't really interested in that kind of case, and we thought this case was much bigger than that. This was about scientific freedom, medical progress, the rights of patients. So we decided we were going to develop a case that was not like your typical patent case—more like a civil rights case.

We set out to identify a gene-patent holder that was vigorously enforcing its patents and then to organize a broad coalition of plaintiffs and experts that could tell the court about all the ways that these patents were harming patients and innovation.

We found the prime candidate to sue in Myriad Genetics, a company that's based in Salt Lake City, Utah. Myriad held patents on two genes, the BRCA1 and the BRCA2 genes. Women with certain mutations along these genes are considered to be at a significantly increased risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. Myriad had used its patents to maintain a complete monopoly on BRCA testing in the United States. It had forced multiple labs that were offering BRCA testing to stop. It charged a lot of money for its test—over 3,000 dollars. It had stopped sharing its clinical data with the international scientific community. And perhaps worst of all, for a period of several years, Myriad refused to update its test to include additional mutations that had been identified by a team of researchers in France.

It has been estimated that during that period, for several years, as many as 12 percent of women undergoing testing received the wrong answer—a negative test result that should have been positive.

This is Kathleen Maxian. Kathleen's sister Eileen developed breast cancer at age 40 and she was tested by Myriad. The test was negative. The family was relieved. That meant that Eileen's cancer most likely didn't run in the family, and that other members of her family didn't need to be tested. But two years later, Kathleen was diagnosed with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. It turned out that Kathleen's sister was among the 12 percent who received a false-negative test result. Had Eileen received the proper result, Kathleen would have then been tested, and her ovarian cancer could have been prevented.

Once we settled on Myriad, we then had to form a coalition of plaintiffs and experts that could illuminate these problems. We ended up with 20 highly committed plaintiffs: genetic counselors, geneticists who had received cease and desist letters, advocacy organizations, four major scientific organizations that collectively represented more than 150,000 scientists and medical professionals, and individual women who either couldn't afford Myriad's test, or who wanted to obtain a second opinion but could not, as a result of the patents.

One of the major challenges we had in preparing the case was figuring out how best to communicate the science. So in order to argue that what Myriad did was not an invention, and that isolated BRCA genes were products of nature, we had to explain a couple of basic concepts, like: What's a gene? What's DNA? How is DNA isolated, and why isn't that an invention?

We spent hours and hours with our plaintiffs and experts, trying to come up with ways of explaining these concepts simply yet accurately. And we ended up relying heavily on the use of metaphors, like gold.

So isolating DNA—it's like extracting gold from a mountain or taking it out of a stream bed. You might be able to patent the process for mining the gold, but you can't patent the gold itself. It might've taken a lot of hard work and effort to dig the gold out of the mountain; you still can't patent it, it's still gold. And the gold, once it's extracted, can clearly be used for all sorts of things that it couldn't be used for when it was in the mountain; you can make jewelry out of it for example—still can't patent the gold, it's still gold.

So now it's 2009, and we're ready to file our case. We filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, and the case was randomly assigned to Judge Robert Sweet. In March 2010, Judge Sweet issued his opinion—152 pages—and a complete victory for our side.

In reading the opinion, we could not get over how eloquently he described the science in the case. I mean, our brief—it was pretty good, but not this good. How did he develop such a deep understanding of this issue in such a short time? We just could not comprehend how this had happened. So it turned out, Judge Sweet's clerk working for him at the time, was not just a lawyer—he was a scientist. He was not just a scientist—he had a PhD in molecular biology.

What an incredible stroke of luck!

Myriad then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And here things got really interesting.

First, in a pivotal moment of this case, the US government switched sides.

So in the district court the government submitted a brief on Myriad's side. But now in direct opposition to its own patent office, the US government files a brief that states that is has reconsidered this issue in light of the district court's opinion, and has concluded that isolated DNA is not patent eligible. This was a really big deal, totally unexpected.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hears all patent cases, and it has a reputation for being very, very pro-patent. So even with this remarkable development, we expected to lose. And we did. Sort of. Ends up split decision, 2 to 1. But the two judges who ruled against us, did so for completely different reasons. The first one, Judge Lourie, made up his own novel, biological theory—totally wrong.

He decided Myriad had created a new chemical—made absolutely no sense. Myriad didn't even argue this, so it came out of the blue. The other, Judge Moore, said she basically agreed with us that isolated DNA is a product of nature. But she's like, "I don't want to shake up the biotech industry." I can think of a lot of things that if judge has said that, we would be in a very different society right now. The third, Judge Bryson, agreed with us.

So now we sought review by the Supreme Court. And when you petition the Supreme Court, you have to present a question that you want the Court to answer. Usually these questions take the form of a super-long paragraph, like a whole page long with lots and lots of clauses, "wherein this" and "therefore that."We submitted perhaps the shortest question presented ever. Four words: Are human genes patentable?

Now when Chris first asked me what I thought of these words, I said, "Well, I don't know. I think you have to say, 'Is isolated DNA patentable?'"

"Nope. I want the justices to have the very same reaction that I had when you brought this issue to me seven years ago."

Well, I certainly couldn't argue with that.

The Supreme Court only hears about one percent of the cases that it receives, and it agreed to hear ours. The day of the oral argument arrives, and it was really, really exciting—long line of people outside, people had been standing in line since 2:30 in the morning to try to get into the courthouse. Two breast cancer organizations, Breast Cancer Action and FORCE, had organized a demonstration on the courthouse steps.

Chris and I sat quietly in the hallway, moments before he was to walk in and argue the most important case of his career. I was clearly more nervous than he was. It's a good thing he was arguing, not me. And I sat there and sort of thinking, "Oh, God, is he ready? Did I do everything I could've done to help prepare for this day?" But any remaining panic subsided as I walked into the courtroom and looked around at a sea of friendly faces: our individual women clients who had shared their deeply personal stories, the geneticists who had taken huge chunks of time out of their busy careers to dedicate themselves to this fight and representatives from a diverse array of medical, patient advocacy, environmental and religious organizations, who had submitted friend of the court briefs in the case.

Also in the room were three leaders of the Human Genome Project, including the co-discoverer of DNA himself, James Watson, who had submitted a brief to the court, where he referred to gene patenting as "lunacy."

The diversity of the communities represented in this room and the contributions each had made to make this day a reality spoke volumes to what was at stake.

The argument itself was riveting. Chris argued brilliantly. But for me, the most thrilling aspect was watching the Supreme Court justices grapple with isolated DNA, through a series of colorful analogies and feisty exchanges, very much the same way as our legal team had done for the past seven years. Justice Kagan likened isolating DNA to extracting a medicinal plant from the Amazon. Justice Roberts distinguished it from carving a baseball bat from a tree. And in one of my absolutely favorite moments, Justice Soto mayor proclaimed isolated DNA to be "just nature sitting there."

We felt pretty confident leaving the courtroom that day, but I could never have anticipated the outcome: nine to zero.

"A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature, and not patent-eligible merely because it has been isolated. And furthermore, Myriad did not create anything."

Within 24 hours of the decision, five labs had announced that they would begin to offer testing for the BRCA genes. Some of them promised to offer the tests at a lower price than Myriad's. Some promised to provide a more comprehensive test than the one Myriad was offering.

But of course the decision goes far beyond Myriad. It ends a 25-year practice of allowing patents on human genes in the United States. It clears a significant barrier to biomedical discovery and innovation. And it helps to ensure that patients like Abigail, Kathleen and Eileen have access to the tests that they need.

A few weeks after the court issued its decision, I received a small package in the mail. It was from Bob Cook-Deegan, a professor at Duke University and one the very first people Chris and I went to visit when we started to consider whether to bring this case. I opened it up to find a small stuffed animal.

We took a big risk in taking this case. Part of what gave us the courage to take that risk was knowing that we were doing the right thing. The process took nearly eight years from the start to finish, with many twists and turns along the way. A little luck certainly helped, but it was the communities that we bridged, the alliances that we created, that made pigs fly.

Thank you.

播放本句

登入使用學習功能

使用Email登入

HOPE English 播放器使用小提示

  • 功能簡介

    單句重覆、上一句、下一句:顧名思義,以句子為單位重覆播放,單句重覆鍵顯示橘色時為重覆播放狀態;顯示灰色時為正常播放狀態。按上一句鍵、下一句鍵時就會自動重覆播放該句。
    收錄佳句:點擊可增減想收藏的句子。

    中、英文字幕開關:中、英文字幕按鍵為綠色為開啟,灰色為關閉。鼓勵大家搞懂每一句的內容以後,關上字幕聽聽看,會發現自己好像在聽中文說故事一樣,會很有成就感喔!
    收錄單字:用滑鼠框選英文單字可以收藏不會的單字。
  • 分享
    如果您覺得本篇短片很有趣或很喜歡,在短片結束時有分享連結,可以分享給朋友一同欣賞,一起看YouTube學英文!

    或是您有收錄很優秀的句子時,也可以分享佳句給大家,一同看佳句學英文!