I seem to represent a dissenting minority on the forums here, but it's mostly just minor nuance. :
First, only difference between a synthetic cell and a natural cell is the process used to create it. The cell itself is indistinguishable from a naturally occurring cell without specific additions to the process.
A process may be patented, while a generic product may not. The specific process used by Craig Venter is his IP and he deserves fair compensation for any commercial use within a reasonable timeframe. If another person independently developed a third process to create a generic cell, they could equally patient their process if it were clearly differentiated.
A non-generic product is patientable, but only as far as another product cannot be identical. This is how we have "name brand" and "knock offs" selling nearly indistinguishable variations and all "generic" products producing identical results.
IMO, specific processes to produce a viable DNA-sequenced organism are and should remain patentable (how to clone); specific DNA-sequences are and should remain patentable (right to self ownership), but any variation of that specific DNA-sequence is not contained within that patent (right to self determination); any subsequent first-generation recombination of the specific DNA-sequence owe fair compensation to the patent holder (respect for parents); however, near variations of a specific DNA-sequence do not owe regard to a patent holder if not direct recombination (right to generic bastard).
I disagree. The problem with categorizing any sort of scientific advancement as intellectual property lies in the core principals of scientific discovery. The goal of science, I would argue, is to contribute to the sum total understanding of the natural world. There's an implicit sense of sharing in the scientific community, one that supersedes any ancillary goals of profitability. While research may indeed be funded through private enterprise for the purpose of growing or expanding a business, that research is built upon a foundation of publicly accessible and publicly paid for scientific knowledge. A private enterprise can lay no moral (or even logical) claim to ownership over an advancement in science because said advancement is merely a single step built upon years of open, free and
unowned scientific inquiry. There's no economic need to maintain that kind of patent simply because discovering the process first, and therefore being able to get the jump on your competitors, is incentive enough itself. Then, if your competitors use your data to discover a cheaper, faster more efficient process you, as a business, benefit enormously from that level of streamlining.
I'm arguing here simply from a business perspective. I'm not convinced that loose IP laws surrounding scientific advancement provides disincentive for a business to partake in scientific inquiry. I think the determination to guard any discovery a corporation makes as IP is just the natural kind of paranoia you develop when running multi-billion dollar companies.
Coming at it from another angle, the losses that society takes on when scientific discoveries are patentable are enormous. First, there's always the risk that these patents are simply going to be sat on and never used. We have similar problems in the software industry where companies find it lucrative to simple file patents en masse and then make their living by suing anyone that treads anywhere near them. I can't think of any specific cases involving, say, a pharmaceutical doing that but often public institutions that want to carry on research can't because their research may violate a particular patent - one that they can't afford to license.
Then of course you have cases where traditional ways of living slam against intellectual property laws. The issues surrounding farmers collecting and saving seed (particularly in India post Green revolution) and "terminator seeds" genetically altered so they can't actually be saved are good examples. Companies may argue that they have a "right" to exercise control over their IP but, given the forecasts of global food shortages and the rising cost of the most basic forms of food (wheat, etc), I think the costs of allowing patents of living organisms and related "products" far outweigh any benefits.
