The book looks pretty interesting and that's a nice story, but I'm not sure that this conclusion is much of a revelation. I'd be a bit more interested in why talking through an issue works when it does.

For instance, when I see

Part of the reason for the change was a historic conference held in Bermuda in 1996, and attended by many of the world’s leading biologists, including several of the leaders of the government-sponsored Human Genome Project.

and

The biologists in the room had enough clout that they convinced several major scientific grant agencies to make immediate data sharing a mandatory requirement of working on the human genome. Scientists who refused to share data would get no grant money to do research. This changed the game, and immediate sharing of human genetic data became the norm.

I think "Ok, so talking through something is important when most of the parties involved would be amenable to the issue, since they already have clout and don't really need to fear rivals so much. When you happen to be part of a relatively powerful group that can make things happen via consensus, and it seems like there is an important issue you could garner consensus on, it would be good to gather up the group and have a chat." This seems kind of trivial though.