Gordon Moore's article from the 70s as the primary benchmark for two decades of genome sequencing costs? That's a stretch when research money is always scarce and running out.
Scientists are constantly under pressure; they're looking at current equipment costs and immediate grant requirements, not just historical trends from a different industry.
It feels like ignoring the real, finite resources and daily grind of labs that drive actual progress; for example, my old uni lab had to scrap a project because a new enzyme suddenly doubled in price, not because an old paper didn't predict it.
Time and attention are finite; you focus on what's actionable now to keep the lights on.