Read the following passage and answer the matching question below.
In the evolution of intellectual property law concerning biotechnology, the "product of nature" doctrine has served as the primary demarcation between unpatentable discoveries and patentable inventions. Historically, this doctrine precluded the patenting of naturally occurring substances, even if they were newly isolated or purified by human effort. However, in the late twentieth century, courts began distinguishing between substances simply extracted from nature and those that were "markedly different" in structure or function from their natural counterparts. This nuanced distinction became the fulcrum of the legal debate surrounding human genetic material.
Proponents of patenting isolated genomic DNA (gDNA) argued that the process of cleaving DNA from its native cellular environment inherently creates a novel chemical entity. Because the isolated gDNA has excised covalent bonds that formerly connected it to the native chromosome, these proponents contended it constitutes a human-made invention. Conversely, critics maintained that the informational content of the gDNA—its nucleotide sequence—remains absolutely identical to that found in nature. For these critics, the chemical severance is merely incidental; the molecule's identity is defined by its function as an informational template rather than its physical boundaries.
The Supreme Court ultimately split the difference, invalidating patents on isolated gDNA while upholding them for complementary DNA (cDNA). cDNA is an artificially synthesized, exon-only sequence derived from messenger RNA; it lacks the non-coding introns present in native gDNA. The Court reasoned that because cDNA is synthesized in a laboratory and does not exist in the naturally occurring genome in that exact continuous sequence, it easily satisfies the "markedly different" standard. However, an overlooked corollary of this ruling concerns native DNA sequences that happen to be entirely devoid of introns, as is the case with certain bacterial genomes. When scientists synthetically create cDNA corresponding to these specific genomes, the resulting laboratory-made sequence is structurally indistinguishable from the naturally occurring DNA.
Based on the passage, match each entity or argument (Left) with the specific detail inference (Right) that is most strongly supported by the author's statements.
- A naturally occurring medicinal compound newly extracted and purified from a rare plant species.Its intellectual property protection would have been categorically denied under the legal interpretation that dominated prior to the late twentieth century.
- The primary argument advanced by the proponents of patenting isolated genomic DNA (gDNA).It relies on the assumption that the physical disruption of native molecular linkages is legally sufficient to establish a novel entity.
- The core argument advanced by the critics opposing the patenting of isolated genomic DNA (gDNA).It posits that the preservation of a molecule's genetic code renders its physical detachment from a chromosome legally inconsequential.
- A synthetically manufactured cDNA sequence that is derived from an entirely intron-free bacterial genome.It would fail to meet the "markedly different" threshold required for patentability under the Supreme Court's reasoning.