>>>> 1. These are all technological developments, not scientific developments. Even MRNA-vaccines leading edge stuff was being built when I was in grad school (

>>>> 1. These are all technological developments, not scientific developments. Even MRNA-vaccines leading edge stuff was being built when I was in grad school (20 years ago). So judging by what technical developments are coming out now, may be a lagging indicator on science. I'm not a life scientist, but a physicist developing scientific equipment. My impression is that every branch of "science" has a technological side, to an extent that varies from one branch to another. Making and testing new therapies has been undertaken under the umbrella of life science for a long time. I think one reason is that the same "hands" that are good at doing the basic science work are also needed for technology work in those fields. Another is that the underlying science isn't robust enough to expect a scientific development to be handed off to an engineering department without needing to learn more science along the way. It's not like physics, where a mainstream engineer working on a technology is highly unlikely to discover gaps in physics theory.