Gordon Moore's paper from '65 was a good story of observation, a pattern he saw in microchips, but it wasn't the engine driving the cost drops for sequencing a human genome decades later.
That's like saying my grandmother's recipe for paella is why a modern chef can create molecular gastronomy; one offers a benchmark, the other builds something new, ingredient by ingredient, and with entirely different tools and challenges.
The National Human Genome Research Institute might have used it for comparison, sure, to show how well they were doing, but the scientists in their labs made the real progress.
If their research grants dried up, no amount of referencing Moore's Law would keep the sequencing costs falling year after year; the human effort and funding are the true plot points here.