Final answer:
Critiques of gene patenting include its potential to hinder scientific advancement due to secrecy, primarily reward commercial interests leading to higher medical costs, and raise ethical concerns about the patentability of natural substances like genes. The exclusive rights granted by patents can limit access to genetic resources and increase costs, as seen in the Myriad Genetics case. Technological implications like CRISPR also present broader ethical debates about our role in modifying nature.
Step-by-step explanation:
There are several criticisms to gene patenting which raise concern among ethicists, scientists, and the general public. One criticism is that gene patents can impede scientific progress by fostering secrecy and limiting the sharing of scientific research, as researchers may be less inclined to share their knowledge for fear of infringing upon patents.
Additionally, there is a concern that gene patents primarily reward commercial interests rather than the public good, potentially leading to higher costs for medical testing and treatment. There is also a philosophical debate regarding whether naturally occurring entities such as genes should be patentable.
This debate centers on the ethical considerations of owning a piece of the natural world, which could limit access and control of genetic resources to a few entities, thus affecting biodiversity and the sovereignty of farmers over their crops. The case of Myriad Genetics illustrates the potential for companies to gain exclusive rights to develop market applications, which might drive up costs for critical medical diagnostics.
Moreover, the implications of genetic engineering and gene editing technologies like CRISPR bring up additional ethical issues, including questions about who has the right to 'edit' nature and the potential unforeseen consequences on biodiversity and the resilience of ecosystems.