Every time I see the gene patent debate now, I think about how my wife spent five years of 60 hour weeks (grad school, she just got her PhD) discovering that some genes from Castor Beans have no effect on the lipids that they produce.
Gene patents get us all backed up in a corner mostly because of the medical tests that can save lives. What people fail to consider is that gene research is not very well-understood yet. Individual researchers fumble around for decades before they get results worth sharing, if ever.
Last time this debate came around, I pointed to Myriad Genetic's financials. They constantly lose money, and rely upon investors to keep them afloat. The research that they do is extremely expensive. They're not some greedy corporation making money hand-over-fist. (My wife, btw, is highly likely to carry the BRCA1 gene that Myriad holds a patent on...three women in her family have been tested and all have it...but until recently we haven't had the financial security to consider getting her tested for it).
I guess my point in all of this is that if gene patents go away, expect genetic research to come to a grinding halt, at least in the private sector. Currently, the private sector is where most of the research is happening. There is some funding by NIH and DoA, but it's on the decline since some kind of financial crisis hit the US.
Since slashdot loves carrying a debate into another field: Imagine if, say, electronic patents were ruled invalid? I mean, electrical doodads are just really following the laws of physics, and processors and logic gates are following the rules of logic. These are concepts that are at their most fundamental mathematics. What would happen to the computer industry if such patents were ruled invalid?