I want to argue "for" or "against" one side of the question title. I lean towards the "against/no" side but see pros/cons for both sides. I would like to receive sufficient input to be able to write a 4 to 8 page essay on this topic with references provided, if/as used. It is not a topic that I know much about.
The full discussion provided me for the question is Issue 19 in Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Business Ethics and Society (12e) by Lisa Newton, Elaine Englehardt, and Michael Pritchard (2012).
Is the patenting of genes in the best interest of health and patients?
From an ethical viewpoint, discussion on this topic encompasses views from both sides. For example:
No, it's a moot point: Thousands of patents on genes have already been issued by the U.S. Patent Office so legality of gene patenting has been established. Moral concerns have been answered on patents, mainly because the genes have been isolated and altered significantly and are part of a scientific bank of genes for overall research. (Annabelle Lever, "Ethics and the Patenting of Human Genes" The Journal of Philosophy, Science, and Law (vol 1), November 2001)
Yes, it's not too late: The human genome is a different business enterprise than other patent applications. The genome stands for essential building blocks of the human species and as such questions of ethics and human dignity should be studied. (Miriam Schurlman, "Of SNPS, TRIPS, and Human Dignity: Ethics and Gene Patenting" BioProcess International, January 2003)