My "dry lab" experiences helped me a lot on interview day and when writing my personal statement. The experiences I emphasized required a lot of people skills (e.g. interviewing participants, conducting assessments on them, etc.) that are valuable in a patient-care setting. Also, my physician interviewers at Harvard and UCSF were really interested in these experiences because, by coincidence, my projects involved topics that they frequently encountered with their own patients. They wanted my insight on what my research data might mean for their patients.
I seriously doubt working in a "dry lab," by itself, will help or hurt you either way. I think it all depends on what you take away from the experience and how you convey that in your writing and interview to the admissions committee. Does the research enhance the "story" about yourself that you will eventually present to the admissions committee? Did your experiences help you grow as a person, scientist, student, etc.? (I'll admit, sometimes it's hard to know until after you do it.) I think these are more important questions to ask yourself than "is it a dry lab vs a wet lab?"
