That's from an interesting article by Christos Ouzounis. Here he discusses the "adolescence" period:
One factor in policymakers' high expectations might have been a certain lack of milestones: due to the field's dual nature, that of science and engineering, computational biology rarely has the “eureka” moment of a scientist's discovery and is grounded in the laborious yet inspired process of an engineer's invention.And there's this bit, too:
The notion of computing in biology, virtually a religious argument just 10 years ago, is now enthroned as the pillar of new biology.So why has "bioinformatics" become less discussed? In part, because it has been so successful.