Aiui most people who push for "biology is quantum" specifically want the large-scope effects because they're grasping for it as a way to justify why consciousness is special. Cells are of course plenty quantum at the scale of molecular interactions.
There are some quantum consciousness cults out there, but plenty of people are interested in investigating the quantum nature of biological effects including consciousness that aren't quacks.
There is also a tendency for some scientists to react dismissively to hypotheses associated with pseudoscience, even when the narrower scientific question is perfectly legitimate.
Reminds me of the visceral reactions in history, like the Rejection of Continental drift (i.e. high level idea was right, but mechanisms hadn't been pinned down yet).
Not claiming that the quantum hypothesis is right, just saying we didn't jump to conclusions.
Roger Penrose certainly appears to be a quack when it comes to quantum consciousness and/or brain operation - it seems that he wants to believe it, so waves his hands vaguely in the direction of microtubules as a place it could be hiding, despite zero experimental evidence, or any falsifiable theory. It's not the fact that this flies in the face of everything we know about quantum effects at classical scale and room temperature that makes this quackery - it's the fact that this is just wishful thinking, not science - not the application of the scientific method of falsifiable theory followed by experimentation.
The question is does any of the interesting counterintuitive QM effects apply to very large structures and that’s where humans being hot dense objects kills most of the more interesting bits of QM.
> didn't jump to conclusions
Thus people aren’t jumping to conclusions, QM itself is saying no here. For the effect people want to apply means QM itself must be wrong. That’s obviously possible but means you need a completely new theory of physics and evidence to support that.