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?