As important as whether something can be patented is how broad the allowed claims will be. With ESTs, for example, if the patent office uses a narrow interpretation that requires an exact sequence, such patents would be nearly worthless. The bottom line is that patent law is working reasonably well, and it would almost certainly be a mistake to try to tinker with it much out of fear about some imagined future danger. The patent office cannot determine in advance which patents will be important, so it doesn't squander its resources trying to do the best job on each patent, just an adequate one. This makes perfect sense.
Most patents never make a penny and are unimportant to anyone but the inventor.
Moreover, the few that really matter will eventually be extensively litigated to fully air the issues involved. With a pragmatic goal like promoting progress, the best way to proceed is our current one that adheres to broad principles and moves forward with sufficient flexibility to allow us to grope for practical solutions that, though far from perfect, are at least sound, adequate and consistent. Only when administrative solutions are fully exhausted does it make sense to risk legislative remedies. Gregory Stock is director of the Program on Medicine, Technology and Society in the School of Medicine and a visiting professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences.