The issue as to what to do with it is the borderline between mere discoveries which do not deserve to be patented and inventions. One might argue that the photographies of f.i. Cartier-Bresson are not inventive since they are nothing more than reproductions of reality. Accordingly, we have to appreciate that artists such as photographers and, for that matter, inventors provide a significant contribution to our knowledge and experience. Any denial of this fact rather reminds me of the policy of the catholic church in the middle ages and apparently is incommensurate with the concept of free citizenship in a democratic society.
Any invention relating to a discovery has to take several hurdles before a patent is granted.
A gene f.i. is nothing but a long string of letters. That string is usually in the public domain, and can be downloaded off the internet. It is what the gene does that is important, and how to manipulate that that is the art, and an art can be patented, in form of a drug or a technology. Both assertions are at best misinformed. It was f.i.