Lucia Nguyen

It's true that Moore's Law offers a powerful way to frame the dramatic cost reductions seen in genome sequencing, giving us a clear narrative for understanding technological progress.
However, to suggest it's a direct informational context that actively guided those reductions might be stretching it a bit.
In our experience, concrete advancements, like the development of new reagents or more efficient automation, are what truly drive cost savings, not just the general observation from a completely different industry.
For example, when we negotiate for better terms on medical supplies in hospitals, we don't just point to semiconductor trends; we scrutinize specific supplier agreements and production efficiencies within that very sector.
The actual mechanisms behind falling genome sequencing costs were likely specific scientific and engineering breakthroughs, not a vague comparison.

It's a fair reading to say that Moore's Law publication offered a compelling analogy for how technology costs can drop dramatically, and that the NHGRI could definitely use it as a comparison point.
However, it's a stretch to claim it was the decisive informational context for tracking genome sequencing costs.
The real drivers for cost reduction in genomics are often specific scientific breakthroughs, like new sequencing chemistries or better automation in the labs, not just a general understanding of chip scaling.
If our workplace negotiated a pay raise for digital skills based only on generic tech trends and not on the actual value created by our specific work, we'd be leaving money on the table; the specific context matters more.

Would we re-enter this agreement today to use Moore's Law as a direct benchmark for genome sequencing costs if we hadn't already spent twenty years on it? Just because Gordon Moore published an article doesn't automatically mean it provides direct informational context for entirely different fields; it's an interpretation, not a given.
We need to apply fresh eyes and ask if there's a real causal link or just a convenient comparison, rather than clinging to a sunk methodological choice.
For instance, if the cost of microchips had plateaued, would the NHGRI still consider it a 'foundational' benchmark, or would they have been forced to dispose of the idea and find a more relevant one for biological data?

Framing Moore's Law as a 'baseline benchmark' for genome sequencing costs feels like we're overcommitting to a comparison because it's familiar.
If we looked at this fresh, would we really say the observation about chips caused or even directly guided the genomics progress?
Genomic advancements came from biological engineering breakthroughs, not from Gordon Moore's paper; that was just a convenient narrative to show how fast things were moving.
We should walk away from the idea it was a direct driver; it was an analogy, not a blueprint.
Think about it: if gene sequencing hit a technical brick wall, Moore's Law wouldn't suddenly make it cheaper or tell scientists how to fix it.