Good enough for high school biology. But not when you're doing influential cancer research. The following is from Subanima's article on the same subject:

One of the most influential papers in cancer biology published in 2000 was the "Hallmarks of cancer" by Douglas Hanahan and Robert Weinberg. It outlined six of the main capabilities of cancer and laid out a rough program for studying the disease ointo the 21st century. To date, it has over 39,000 citations which, in academia, is officially known as a shitton.

It was so successful that they released a sequel in 2011 which has over 62,000 citations - also known as a metric shitton.

But at the heart of both papers is the machine metaphor and the idea that if we just map out all the functions of proteins in one ginormous map, we'll just have to run some maths and we'll know everything we need to know to cure cancer. In 2000 they wrote:

Two decades from now, having fully charted the wiring diagrams of every cellular signalling pathway, it will be possible to lay out the complete ‘integrated circuit of the cell.’

He also notes the same thing you noted, that it's a good metaphor for high schoolers.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Why can't we have both?

Edit: switched what to why.

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

I think we will. It's still a useful analogy for initial understanding. However, I think we should be clear that it's not quite perfect. Just like we have to be careful about bringing a Newtonian understanding into quantum physics where someone might believe a photon has mass because it has momentum.