Evidence cuts both ways.

Why it looks right (sector surge):

• Synthetic biology funding hit unprecedented levels in 2021. SynBioBeta reported that Q1 and Q2 2021 each set new records, with Q1 alone shattering all prior funding records and projecting up to $36B for the year. Q3 2021 then set another all‑time high, and 2021 as a whole reached nearly $18B—roughly equal to all prior years 2009–2020 combined. (synbiobeta.com)
• Even after the broader market turned, the industry still raised $10.3B in 2022, with SynBioBeta describing this as a “crucial period” marked by billions in investment and growing demand for bio‑based products. (globenewswire.com)
• Market‑size studies consistently show rapid growth: estimates put the synthetic biology market in the low‑teens billions of dollars in 2022–2023, with CAGRs around 20–28% and forecasts to tens or even hundreds of billions by the 2030s, driven by healthcare, industrial biomanufacturing, and sustainable materials. (globenewswire.com)
• New, high‑profile synbio‑adjacent companies did emerge in this period. Colossal Biosciences, for example, launched in 2021 and by early 2025 had raised $435M and reached a $10.2B valuation as a “decacorn,” explicitly leveraging gene‑editing and synthetic biology technologies. (en.wikipedia.org) Platform‑market reports now describe companies like Ginkgo Bioworks, Twist Bioscience, and LanzaTech as leading a growing “synthetic biology platforms” segment. (rss.globenewswire.com)

Why it looks wrong (the ‘Netscape moment’ and Zymergen/Ginkgo specifically):

• Zymergen’s 2021 IPO quickly became a high‑profile failure: the company revealed minimal revenue and major product issues just months after going public, its stock crashed, it was acquired by Ginkgo in 2022 for about $300M (a fraction of its ~$3B IPO valuation), and it ultimately filed for Chapter 11 and moved to liquidate in 2023–2024. (en.wikipedia.org)
• Ginkgo’s SPAC listing at a ~$15–23B valuation in 2021 was followed by sharp criticism and a dramatic de‑rating. Short sellers called it a “colossal scam” and a “hoax for the ages”; the stock fell more than 90% from its peak, and it became the subject of both a DOJ inquiry and shareholder litigation. (fiercebiotech.com) Rather than being an unambiguous flagship like Netscape, Ginkgo has become a controversial poster child for overhyped SPAC‑era biotech.
• The broader biotech market, including many synthetic biology names, entered a downturn after peaking around 2021. The S&P biotech index is reported to be down more than 50% from its high, and life‑science investors like Syncona are explicitly citing a prolonged biotech slump and difficult IPO environment. (thetimes.co.uk) Venture funding in biotech overall has waned by 2024–2025, with fewer IPOs and investors becoming more selective. (wsj.com) That pattern looks more like a boom‑and‑bust than a sustained Netscape‑style takeoff.
• Even within synbio, investment after 2021 fell from the record peak, with 2022 funding significantly lower than 2021 (though still large), suggesting that 2021 was more of a cyclical high than the start of an uninterrupted multi‑year capital‑markets surge triggered by the Zymergen/Ginkgo listings. (globenewswire.com)

Net assessment:

• The broad claim that “a tremendous amount [would] happen” in synthetic biology in the 2–5 years after 2021 is supported by the funding records, rapid market growth, new high‑profile companies, and expanding applications.
• The specific framing that the Zymergen and Ginkgo IPO/SPAC were enduring “Netscape moments” that catalyzed a sustained public‑markets boom is undercut by Zymergen’s collapse, Ginkgo’s massive drawdown and controversies, and a tough post‑2021 biotech capital‑markets environment.

Because major parts of the prediction (sector activity and growth) are borne out, while its emblematic examples and ‘Netscape’ analogy clearly misfired, the overall outcome is best characterized as ambiguous, not cleanly right or wrong.