There's a great paper from about a couple of years ago that dives deep into what a gene is and provides historical context. As you'll see, the definition of a

There's a great paper from about a couple of years ago that dives deep into what a gene is and provides historical context. As you'll see, the definition of a genes as being an explanation for heredity is somewhat dated. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/6/669.full http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/6/669.full I do like the definition in that article "The gene is a union of genomic sequences encoding a coherent set of potentially overlapping functional products." Personally I've always had issues with the idea of patenting basic biology, and genes are fundamental biology of a species, since no one manufactures genomic sequences. How that biology can be controlled, modified and used for all kinds of purposes is a different story. I would also argue that patents break down completely in modern science, where there is too much complexity for any one organization or people to control what you can do. It hampers science, it hampers innovation, perhaps even to a degree that it's harming human health. This from someone who believes pharma companies should get more control over their patents with the caveat that "me too" drugs should be thrown out once an extended patent period is in place.