"better suited for a philosopher rather than a biologist" just means that not enough is known about the subject to speculate usefully.

Usually.

... until biology catches up.

So take biology out of the discussion, and consider consciousness in a computer system. If a program is self-aware, is it conscious? Or is there more to consciousness than that? Why don't conscious computer programs exist if we already understand how consciousness works? Would it be ethical to reboot that program, if it existed?

Biology can explain how neurons in the brain (computer) works. It can also potentially explain how thought and logic play out (program logic). But how do you explain consciousness in this metaphor? this.isRunning? Or does it make more sense to say that even if we understood all of biology, there are still things that we won't fully understand?

No I'd say that the last 10 years have shown that this question is actually better answered by biology than by philosophy (who haven't come up with a decent answer in 1000s of years).