When a quack doctor claims that stars or prayers or parapsychological energies determine the growth of a tumor in some defenseless little girl there is a public outcry. Jumping between computer science, biology and cognition does not provoke such reactions. It is widely regarded as innovative and exiting. This is in itself a remarkable phenomenon. The obvious answer is that in the first case the correlation is entirely unscientific, whereas, having discovered the genetic code, scientists are in a position to establish relevant resemblances to a programming environment, triggering predictions about our future ability to rewrite the biological sequences by means of computers.
Much hard work has to go into mutual fine-tuning of the disciplines involved.
Scientific claims are empty if they cannot be verified in an overarching, operative framework. This must be determined within some common, second-level structure. And here we are on familiar terrain. Associations of ideas begin to flow. Both types of modules combine to form a powerful cybernetico-biological entity, the result of fusing computer science and genetic intervention.