In the face of legislation banning patents on genes, some experts say that they’re not only good for business, but for science, too.

Since the first draft of the Human Genome Project was unveiled in 2000, scientists, intellectuals, and legislators alike have bemoaned the coming of gene patents. Writing in the New York Times in February, 2007, Michael Crichton—with more than a hint of melodrama—said “You, or someone you love, may die because of a gene patent that should never have been granted in the first place.”

Responding to these concerns, in February 2007, seven U.S. congressmen introduced a bill that would prospectively ban patents on human genes and even smaller stretches of DNA.

The reasons single-gene patents are such a bad idea, their critics say, fall into three major categories: they will make it more difficult to develop technologies using multiple-gene sequences, such as DNA microarrays, and in general slow the pace of medical progress; they will make it more difficult to receive life-saving diagnostic tests; and they will raise costs of genetic technologies (because biotech companies would want to capitalize on their patent rights before they expire).

But protein-scientist-turned-patent-lawyer Christopher Holman isn’t so sure.

As Holman explains in an essay in today’s issue of Science, of the 4,270 single-gene patents that exist in the U.S., only 31 have ever been taken up in court. (Compare that to the 1294 lawsuits that have been filed for drug patents since 2000, or the 278 filed for molecular biology of microbiology patents.) None of those 31 was used against a manufacturer or DNA microarray technology. Instead, the vast majority of the lawsuits were cases in which genes were used to make therapeutic proteins—that is, drugs. Thus, Holman argues, the gene patents serve the same function as regular drug patents: they incentivize biotech companies to take on huge R&D risks for the sake of advancing medical science.

This may be especially timely given our current economic downturn. Last week, Pfizer announced it would focus on biotech instead of heart disease, as its major patents are about to expire and no new blockbusters are in the pipeline. And Eli Lilly just spent $6.5 billion on biotech ImClone precisely because its cancer drugs face no competition from generics.At the same time, foreign biotech markets are becoming more attractive for global companies. Biotech investments in India have grown 38% in the past three years. The Prime Minister of Malaysia Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced on Monday that the biotech industry there is expected to grow 22 percent annually. He specifically attributed this to the country’s efforts to protect intellectual property, including the establishment of an IP court and IP enforcement.

Holman’s made a good case for gene patents. So I’m convinced….at least for now.