Jian Sato

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.

The NHGRI Genome Sequencing Cost Tracking needs more than an analogy to semiconductor scaling for its cost reductions; you need a defined process for how that comparison actually guided decisions.
Without clear ownership and a detailed breakdown of which specific technological advancements directly contributed to the savings, it's just an interesting observation, not a reliable benchmark.
We need to see the RACI matrix showing who was accountable for each step in reducing those costs, and documented sign-offs for the actual breakthroughs.
For instance, if a new sequencing chemistry cut costs by 50%, there should be a project file with a named project manager and approval signatures detailing that improvement, not just a general nod to Moore's Law.
It's about governance, not just a broad idea.