>> It should be noted, however, that *even in this sense* DNA contains no
>> information.
>
>Sure it does. Each DNA strand pair consists of a succession
>of _bases_, of which there are four, which code for a number
>of proteins and probably also contain control markers ("stop
>here", "da capo", etc.)
Okay, you got me. But this still has no relevance to the patenting of genes. The information in genes is supposed to describe phenotypic characteristics. Instead it describes the sequence of molecules in a chain of amino acids (whose ability to fold into proteins is unrelated to DNA). What the body does with its proteins is not determined by genes, and biologists know this. DNA just gets the ball rolling, and depending on the hill, you don't know where that thing is going. That's why genetic engineering is so problematic. You transfer a gene associated with a particular characteristic from one species to another, and you might get the desired result, but more than likely you'll get some totally surprising effect. The desired trait is simply not encoded in the gene. For all intents and purposes, biotech firms are patenting gibberish.
Ted