CRISPR was discovered, not invented. At least the core concepts should not be patentable under any system. And then any inventions around it done at publicly funded institutions should probably not be patentable under any system.

Companies don't really invent very much, they usually find things or take existing things and try to monopolize them with patents.

> And the distinction between designing an algorithm and designing a machine is kind of arbitrary.

The distinction isn't arbitrary. If you can do something entirely in math/software then you can also hard code it into a physical machine, but the reverse obviously isn't true. There is no calculation you can perform on an abstract Turing machine that will cause it to generate electricity or thrust or refine steel or physically prevent someone from accidentally sticking their hand in a saw blade.

I don't see the difference. The process of designing a thing is the same whether it's an algorithm or a pile of gears. Sure real world inventions can involve new scientific discoveries. But most don't, and scientific discoveries shouldn't be patentable anyway.