Conflicting ideas

This is probably a problem that many post graduate students suffer, all to vary degrees I would imagine. So I thought that because I have been experiencing it lately, it would be cathartic to write about it.
It revolves around the conflicting ideas/advice from two (or more) supervisors.
In Australia, when you choose supervisors for your project it makes sense to choose ones with different backgrounds and expertise, as it broadens the scope of the information that you can draw from. Right? Well, that is what I thought anyway. Turns out, my Clinical Supervisor 1 and my Molecular Genetics Supervisor 2 have very different ideas about what direction my project should take (I am currently writing my research proposal and several abstracts for conferences).

So what is the answer to this problem? Logically (and theoretically) you would take on all the advice and make your own decisions (like when raising children!) and I am trying to do this to some extent. But Clinical Supervisor 1 is very sure that his knowledge of genetics is as good as Mol. Gen. Supervisor 2 (it isn't...although it is remarkably good for a clinician) and he is my coordinating supervisor (ie. the one who pays my scholarship) and I do really respect him and all of his experience so I have gone ahead with his advice.

I just hope that I haven't disappointed Supervisor 2.
Do you think that I am worrying too much?