My initial reading of the amicus briefs to the Federal Circuit, on the two en banc questions about the written description requirement, indicated two clusters of argument. There are contentions that the requirements “as applied” impact the life sciences harshly. Others contend that there is, or is not, a description requirement in 112,1 separate from having to enable.
The “as applied” contentions may have merit, or may be anecdotally accurate. Either way, anecdotes are not a sound basis for precedential rulings. The statute says what it says. No one would desire a result that allows a patent to issue, before the invention is to the point of invention. So sure, there are applications and issued patents that get treated harshly, especially if the final claim set is more a product of negotiation with the examiner than based on a restatement of the specification.
As part of my adjunct professor work, an amicus brief was filed with the assistance of law students in the IP Law Society at the University of Kentucky College of Law. It now is published on scribd.com, and accessible at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/22480653/Brief-UKIPLS-11-11-2009