Final answer:
The decision against gene patents stems from the ethical debate over whether they hinder scientific progress and lead to monopolization of medical testing and treatments, considering genes as naturally occurring substances shouldn't be patented.
Step-by-step explanation:
The main point of the recent court decision that gene patents should not be granted is centered on the ethical and practical implications of patenting genetic material. Philosophers and ethicists debate the morality of gene patents, with some arguing that they motivate research and incentivize progress, while others contend that they impede scientific advancement and unjustly benefit private entities. The crux of the argument against gene patents is that they may inhibit scientific research, lead to higher costs for medical testing and treatment due to monopolies, and challenge the concept of genes as naturally occurring entities that should not be owned. The historical shift in patentability of living organisms began with the 1980 US Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, which opened the door for genetic material and genetically modified organisms to be patented, leading to exclusive rights and market control for entities like Myriad Genetics with BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.