Geneticist: Billions of dollars are spent each year on high-profile experiments that attempt to link particular human genes with particular personality traits.
Conclusion (thus)
Funding for human gene research should be reduced while funding for other genetic research should be increased.
Evidence
Human gene research has few practical consequences (but billions are spent on it).
Other genetic research are more mundane and practical, and grossly underfunded.
Evaluate
While most Strengthen + Principle questions want us to pick an answer that supplies a good Linking idea ("If Premise, then Conclusion"), there is a sizable minority that deal more with Weighing Tradeoffs.
This seems like a ripe contender for that sort of answer, since the conversation is about weighing the tradeoffs between where we invest our funding dollars.
Goal
If the answer is in a Linking style, it should stress the advantage that "other genetic research" has over "human gene research":
if research X has more then more funding practical consequences → should go to X than research Y than to Y
If the answer is a Weighing Tradeoffs style, then it should say the upside of "other genetic research" is more important than the upside of "human gene research":
In terms of how we spend our limited funding dollars, practical consequences is more important than a new understanding of human nature.
But we'll consider any answer that strengthens.