"This is no more difficult to understand than any event based system" [insert image of the Netflix micro services architecture]
This gets a laugh.
DNA is like an executable file written in assembly. Most of the time it makes a bunch of pure functions (but not always) and it is self modifying, lol. For most of the work I do I can presume that gene X produces a "pure function"
At the next level up you have a bunch of functions that can take some arguments and spits out some stuff. The question is does that function work etc?
At the next level up you have systems thinking. If I have 100 lambda servers that are all executing from a queue and then I have 20 lambda servers that are all reading from those 100 you can guess where the data is going to pile up.
I am radically over simplifying, but hopefully you see the parallels to binary, code, application logic
In our "designed" software you can almost never go and change one line to modify the behavior of a program. Instead you have dozens if not millions of functions that all interact depending on the lens by which you want to look. Usually it is contained in on "area" with code that matters the most, but that isn't always the case. Is it any surprise that biology is even messier?
The article mentions the 300 genes related to schizophrenia. This is like me mentioning that my random Go service also uses a bunch of Go standard library code when it is executing.
Debugging stuff like this is what our careers are made of.
For a long time scientist were looking for a single gay gene. Poking around once I knew what to look for it only took around 6 months to figure out the whole LGBT, but in nearly all cases it involves more than just one gene. You simply have to apply debugging logic at each layer to figure it out. It is handy to understand all the layers, but depending on the problem not always required.