Realistically, contributions from naive computer scientist (naive = no biology training) would be expected to be net negative in the medium term, as the cost of training them to be useful would come at the cost of daily productivity (same argument as Brook's Mythical Man-Month).

I've worked directly in the area covered by computer science and biology through most of my career. One anti-pattern I see that comes up over and over is an expert in CS will come along, see some article in Scientific American or wherever, and build a tool around some clever algorithm that doesn't really solve problems that are useful to scientists. Often the problem is lack of Deep Knowledge of Biology. I've found that the CS people (and physicists) who spend at least a couple years reading up on modern biology are much more effective contributors.