You see, my feeling is that trying to guess the progress of genetics by extrapolating the complexity and insecurity of the computation chemistry is wrong. As far as I understood, genetics today is a lot about (but not only) identifying which genes (portions of DNA) are responsible of which phenotype (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype).Therefore a lot of resources are and were allocated to create a dictionary with genes as keys and phenotype as values. This dictionary is being populated at a quite fast pace and this combined with the possibility to take genes from some organisms and implant them in the DNA of a cell of other organisms and see the resulting phenotype is already a great achievement (imagine undergrads cutting and pasting DNA daily). They are not inventing new proteins and worry that they will not "bind" enough. They just take the DNA known to produce proteins in some organisms and place it in other organisms and suddenly proteins which have a known effect in different organisms, appear in a new organism. Yes, there is a long way from here to engineering genes that will produce and deliver a medicine inside an organism but I wouldn't call this primitive at all. Sorry for the simplification and possible errors.
OK, I see your perspective now. I agree that our understanding of how genes encode for proteins is well developed, as are our techniques for "transplanting" a gene from one organism to another.
What we have very little handle on is gene regulation. All those "non-coding" genes that scientists used to think were junk? They are actually used to control gene transcription.
Controlling this is infinitely easier in a simple organism like a hookworm, but the complexities of in human borders on obscene.
