It's crazy that we only recently discovered such a critical and [physically] widespread biological component. Makes me wonder what other "obvious" things we've yet to stumble upon.
yeah, it's not easy.
See what happened with Alzheimers, where as specific theory that is probably wrong dominated for years and received most funding, sending a cure back years as well.
https://www.statnews.com/2019/06/25/alzheimers-cabal-thwarte...
Compared to tech, though, there is a broad consensus that we have a very large Rumsfeld problem: we know that we don't know what we don't know.
Come play in a wet lab for 5 years and see how you feel.
Also dead bodies (easier to study and dissect) are very different from live bodies (you can get a quick look during surgery, but that's nothing like detailed dissection).
You're going to give up years of your life and work your ass off tirelessly toward the PhD that is necessary to open other doors. Do you bet it all on a far-out idea that might not pan out? You don't want to get too conservative, but you don't want to go wild either.
Then the same thing repeats when you're working on research or directing research. You need to get grant money. You need to publish.
You want to advance yourself within the field, and the way to do that is with either one amazing breakthrough or (more likely) a string of solid, significant work.
And once you've built a reputation, which is important, you can lose it all by venturing too far out.
Thus, while it's not necessarily that people are closed-minded, there are incentives for most people to take a middle road, which means a lot more evolutionary progress than revolutionary progress.
If you're the kind of person who enjoyed physics, you'll probably like it. And it will teach you why there are some many unknowns.
Life is complicated, and studying the essence of it is difficult.