Controversial U.S. bill would lift Supreme Court ban on patenting human genes
Okay, I understand the arguments against this bill and can sum them up easily; patents are meant for <i>inventions</i> whereas these are discoveries. Genes and their properties exist in nature and the discoverers stumbled on to them through some variant of effort and random chance.<p>Logically, if they exist by default and we are making observations about them, then how do we get to patent&#x2F;own the very idea of them? An absurd parallel would be Charles Darwin patenting a giant tortoise - an entity that exists in nature - upon his discovery and requiring a license fee each time a natural history museum displayed one.<p>But that&#x27;s one side of the story; what&#x27;s the argument <i>for</i> the bill? Is there a logical reason why the patent system should be expanded to include entities you observe in nature?<p>I am sure the above can be formulated with more precision and panache, but as far as I can tell, I&#x27;m not sure what the equivalent set of ideas are for the people arguing for this bill. The best that I can come up with is an appeal to utility (i.e. it would incentivize X, Y or Z). However that&#x27;s not a strong enough argument - what&#x27;s the &quot;steel man&quot; that&#x27;s missing from this conversation?