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.