I think most of this money would be better spent focused on reducing the cost of life extension research, like essential tooling, not spelunking through combina

I think most of this money would be better spent focused on reducing the cost of life extension research, like essential tooling, not spelunking through combinatorial search space for drugs. Granted, this is more of an engineering approach, so I could see why biologists might prefer tinkering with oxidation pathways. If a synthetic genome costs $40 million then how are you going to try out 1,000 low-aging variants of the genome without spending an impossibly large amount of money? The cost centers need to be ruthlessly attacked-- sequencing, synthesis, combinatorial array testing, scale-up of arbitrary biomolecule production, debugging methodologies (optogenetics has been a tremendous success), etc.