Most biologists do in fact take SENS seriously - you are very behind the times, and your characterization of the technologies involved is outright wrong.
See the SENS Foundation advisory board, for example, as a representative sample of influential figures in the life sciences:
Equally, see the proposed plan for moving thirteen mitochondrial genes into the cell nucleus: this has been achieved over the past five years for three of the thirteen, and last year someone came up with a generalizable method that should be applicable to all of them, rather than having to hack a separate methodology for each one.
See the SENS Foundation advisory board, for example, as a representative sample of influential figures in the life sciences:
http://sens.org/sens-research/advisory-board
Equally, see the proposed plan for moving thirteen mitochondrial genes into the cell nucleus: this has been achieved over the past five years for three of the thirteen, and last year someone came up with a generalizable method that should be applicable to all of them, rather than having to hack a separate methodology for each one.
http://sens.org/sens-research/research-themes/mitosens
Your comments show that you are unfamiliar with the research community and with the science in question.