I think this is a ludicrous idea, and one that should be shot down immediately. No, you simply do not patent genes. If you can patent genetic materials, then we really are spiraling out of control with our ethics and moral standards, even with the world being safer. This is just bizarre.
Genes should not be patented. Science and business should sometimes really not intersect, and this is one of those cases. Genes should be left alone to do their work in all of its forms -- plant, human, and other animal. We would be best served by trying to improve our own genes through diet and exercise than in labeling genes for ownership.
I don't believe that genes should ever be patented for any reason. That sounds like something that would have been in a dystopian novel about the future. I don't want to think of a world where it's okay to breed a person a certain way or have a company profit off providing a child with certain traits.
Monsanto has patented a gene in beans that makes them resistant to pesticides and herbacides. They use this patent to leverage farmers to only buy from them, and forces the farmer to do this every year. The natural course of this cycle would have been that the farmer harvested his own seeds from his crop every year. Now, with patented genes, the farmer must buy new seeds from Monsanto every year.
No, patenting genes should not be permitted. Assumingly there are a limited amount of gene combinations, therefore neither individuals, businesses, nor governments should be able to patent these genes. If that were the case, someone could patent "blue eyes," or something else as common. There are also health implications in patenting genes, such as with an epidemic. If one company can patent something, it could prevent necessary research to come up with a viable treatment.