Yes, the CRISPR dispute is about patents. But, as the article says in the third paragraph, "But in the midst of this debate, perhaps a more fundamental one is t

Yes, the CRISPR dispute is about patents. But, as the article says in the third paragraph, "But in the midst of this debate, perhaps a more fundamental one is taking place", which clearly indicates it's talking about a different debate than just the CRISPR patent. The issue here is that CRISPR is like a printing press when scribes were state of the art. Yes, the patent on the printing press is important, but arguably more important is what's the status of all the stuff you can write with it. Previously, synthesizing long stretches or precisely editing DNA was hard enough that there weren't many people doing it (and synthesizing long pieces of DNA de novo is still pretty niche, though there are some pushing for a massive investment in making this tech a lot easier). But as it becomes easier and people get more experienced, it's worthwhile to have already thought through and discussed these issues.