A carve-out is necessary for certainty---[the counterplan] is a sweeping solution that decimates certainty and invites litigation.

One of the major ramifications of Myriad was the uncertainty that the investment world felt after the Supreme Court's decision.319 This uncertainty led to an unwillingness among investors to invest in biotechs that relied on gene patents, thus hindering ongoing research and development of gene-based diagnostics.320 Although big, sweeping changes like those proposed by Senator Tillis or those that would see gene patents split off into their own field of patent law might ultimately be able to address the gene patent problem,321 they are unlikely to foster the economic certainty needed to stabilize the U.S. biotech industry. Such drastic solutions will likely only serve to increase uncertainty around gene patents as biotechs, investors, and courts try to sort out the implications of such moves.

As such, this Note advocates for a more incremental change effected through amending subject matter eligibility to allow for specific types of gene patents, without totally upending gene patent jurisprudence. Such an approach would likely not have as unsettling an effect on the biotech industry and, if well-crafted, could quickly inspire the confidence needed to get investment, and thus scientific progress, into genetic diseases back on track.322 This approach could further be crafted to protect access of genetic research into important topics like viruses, thus achieving the right balance of incentive and innovation.