I find most of the language discussing this misleading because nobody is actually talking about patenting human genes. If you're curious about hearing a non-st

I find most of the language discussing this misleading because nobody is actually talking about patenting human genes. If you're curious about hearing a non-straw-man opinion about "gene" patents, I'd suggest this short article that discusses the BRCA patents and least describes what the patents were actually about. If you're really curious, there are longer more comprehensive sources than this opinion piece: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/06/can-the-human-blueprint-have-owners/a-century-old-form-of-patent https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/06/can-the-hum... > Of course, the patent system only protects new things. You cannot get a patent on the raw, untouched form of a molecule as it exists in nature. > However, you can get a patent for identifying, isolating and purifying something that already exists in the world. For example, the inventor of aspirin at the turn of the 20th century isolated and synthesized the active ingredient in willow bark, which people had chewed for thousands of years to relieve pain and fever. > The greatest confusion in the debate about the Myriad case stems from failing to understand this distinction. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court contributed to the confusion when it took the case to answer: “Are human genes patentable?” Patent experts scratched their heads, because the answer is undisputed: No, human genes in their naturally occurring form are not patentable. > But Myriad’s patents don’t cover genes in their naturally occurring, unisolated form, just as the aspirin patent did not cover chewable bark. Rather, the BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents claim the genes as isolated, purified and used in a scientific or medical context. The gene patents are "composition of matter" patents that apply the genes to particular contexts. I'm not going to argue about the appropriateness of those patents here (which would also seem to apply to the aspirin patent), but I do think it's important to understand what the actual debate is about. For example, it's also almost certainly false that gene patents covered the entire genome (a response here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979127/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979127/ ), and it's false that just because one component of a patent mentions a genetic sequence that all use and research of that genetic sequence is a violation of the patent (because the patents include more than just the gene sequence -- they are a specific application).