Without spending too much time on this: Incentive - I'm not sure why you dismiss this, as it is an important part of the justification for intellectual propert

Without spending too much time on this: Incentive - I'm not sure why you dismiss this, as it is an important part of the justification for intellectual property laws in general. Lincoln said "The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius," a quote that is carved into the stone of the Dept. of Commerce building in DC. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Identifying a gene and its function would seem to qualify as a discovery. Social - A key feature of patents that is often overlooked is that they are public records. The idea of a patent is not just to secure a temporary monopoly, but to use that temporary monopoly as compensation for public disclosure of a trade secret. The patent expires and then the idea is public knowledge and free to use. This is in contrast to ideas and information that might be kept secret and never divulged to the public. Philosophical - Is math discovered or invented? There is not universal agreement on this. Likewise, what about something like a vaccine, which is simply a special preparation of naturally occurring materials that trigger your naturally occurring immune system? Which part was invented, and which part discovered? Ultimately it's arguable that humans are naturally occurring phenomena, and all of our works are simply re-arrangements of materials and energies that are themselves naturally occurring. If the distinction between discovering and inventing is up for debate, it follows that related laws are too. I don't actually believe that genes should be patentable, but I do believe in being able to articulate opposing arguments for consideration.