Moreover, they are at this stage the exact same problem- requiring not competing but identical research: we need to understand generally how biology works enough to predictably engineer it.
> they are at this stage the exact same problem- requiring not competing but identical research
I'd go one step further in arguing they're complementary. The personalities that will work on e.g. wings or longevity are not the types drawn to curing diseases, much less the boring ones.
Broadening the field from solving mundane problems to solving daring ones is net positive. You gain personalities that would have otherwise stayed away. (You see something similar in space programmes.)
And a huge part of what steered talented people into programming over biomedicine was the relative freedom. The more you can do without the drag of convincing a vast bureaucratic/political machine to let you try your idea, the more people will contribute to progress.
