In February 1975, leading biology researchers and lawyers participated in what became known as the Asilomar Conference, a meeting to discuss and recommend policy regarding novel recombinant DNA, or rDNA, technology. rDNA is DNA that scientists create in a lab by combining genetic material from two distinct sources. A group of researchers, including Paul Berg, Maxine F. Singer, and David Baltimore, organized the Asilomar Conference, which was held at the Asilomar Conference Grounds in Pacific Grove, California. The purpose was to discuss how to manage the risk of researchers unintentionally creating harmful or deadly pathogens through rDNA research. The conference resulted in the creation of the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules in 1976, which outlines biosafety guidelines for researchers working with rDNA. The Asilomar Conference was one of the first instances when scientists gathered independently to discuss and establish precautionary guidelines for research using rDNA, a technology with the potential for wide-reaching applications for medicine, biology, and reproduction.

In the 2013 legal case Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., hereafter AMP v. Myriad, the United States Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that naturally occurring gene sequences are not eligible for patents. Researchers at the biotechnology company Myriad Genetics, hereafter Myriad, identified the precise location and sequence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in 1994 and 1995, respectively. Certain mutations in those genes increase a person’s risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. In 1998, Myriad was awarded multiple patents for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, including ones related to diagnostic testing. However, in 2009, the Association for Molecular Pathology, a non-profit organization that researchers and develops genetic testing, challenged seven of Myriad’s patents in a case that went to the Supreme Court in 2013. Had the Supreme Court upheld Myriad's patents claims, diagnostic screenings of BRCA1 and BRCA2 and further research into those genes would have been restricted to Myriad alone. AMP v. Myriad ensured that potentially life-saving medical advances related to identifying and sequencing genes, such as cancer screening and the detection of genetic diseases, would not be controlled by one company.