Gene Patents and the Myriad patent case reveal the confusion that often occurs when you mix science, law, politics, and emotion. This article provides a digest of a series of blog posts on Biotech-Now  that address common myths in the gene patent debate.
Myth 1: Your Genes are Patented
Fact: It is not possible to patent your genes
The term “gene patent” is a misnomer, because genes as they exist in the body cannot be patented. Because a naturally-occurring gene – even a newly-discovered one – cannot be patented, patents don’t provide ownership rights over our genes , and nobody can infringe a patent by having a certain gene, or by passing it on to their children.
For more on what actually is patented read Debunking the Myth: Your Genes are Patented 
Myth 2: ‘Gene Patents’  are not necessary for health care innovation.
For more relevant facts read ‘Gene Patents’ are not necessary for health care innovation. 
Myth 3: ‘Gene Patents’ Stifle Research?
1. The Federal Trade Commission  has concluded that concerns that strong biotechnology patent protection would obstruct commercialization have yet to materialize. Indeed, the FTC recently concluded that concern that patenting upstream technology, or “research tools,” would actually obstruct commercialization of new products and hinder follow-on innovation in biotechnology “has yet to materialize .”
2. In 2007, David Adelman  from the University of Arizona  and Kathryn DeAngelis from Piper Rudnick published a detailed study of more than 52,000 biotechnology patents  found “few tangible signs of patent thickets that define the anti-commons.”
For more evidence that ‘gene patents’ do not stifle research read ‘Gene Patents’ Stifle Research? 
Myth 4: Banning Gene Patents Will Promote Innovation? 
Patents on isolated DNA molecules have featured prominently in innovative biotechnology success stories:
A decision that isolated DNA molecules are patent-ineligible would have far-reaching negative consequences for approximately 50,000 issued DNA patents  both from past reliance and forward-looking perspectives. Some innovative technologies directly affected would be:
i. U.S. Patent No. 7,341,750  has claims directed to a compound isolated from the bark of Ginkgo biloba that has useful anti-platelet activity and thus may prove to be an important medicine in vascular diseases.
ii. U.S. Patent No. 7,307,057  has claims directed to an antibiotic isolated from a particular microorganism that has shown to be effective against even some of the most dangerous multi-drug resistant bacteria in existence today.
iii. United States Patent 7384953  claims a new highly-purified preparation of rapamycin (sirolimus), an immunosuppressant and antifungal compound discovered in a ground fungus on Easter Island, and first patented in purified form in 1975 (U.S. 3,929,992, now expired), available in the United States under the trade name Rapamune®;
For more biotechnology innovation that would be affected by a ‘gene patent’ ban read Banning Gene Patents Will Promote Innovation? 
Myth 5: Myriad Genetics’ actions justify a ban on gene patents?
The following information was provided by Myriad’s General Counsel during his presentation on the subject during a recent BIO IP conference :
The following information comes from U.S. District Court Judge Sweet’s Opinion:
For more facts read Myriad Genetics’ actions justify a ban on gene patents?