MANY people believe that patents on parts of the human genome
are a bad idea. Some object on principle, arguing that what is
human is inherently special, and should not be the subject of
property rights. Some object that DNA sequences are discoveries,
not inventions, and thus legally ineligible for patenting (an
argument that applies to all DNA patents, not just those on the
human genome). Some say that granting patents in the area
hinders innovation rather than acting as an incentive, which
patents are supposed to do. That is because people who have
obtained patents on particular genes are attempting to charge
researchers for using those genes in their research, even when
no commercial gain is involved. And some argue that there is
nothing wrong with the idea in principle, but that patent
offices, particularly America's, have been promiscuous in
approving applications that do not come up to legal snuff.  A
study published in this week's Science, by Jordan Paradise and
her colleagues at the Illinois Institute