CRISPR-Cas9 has opened up a new frontier in medicine, with countries like the USA and China already running clinical trials to treat diseases like cancer, sickle cell anemia, and genetic blindness. But in India, regulatory and ethical clarity on human gene editing remains limited — leaving many wondering if we’re being too cautious, or simply too slow.
Is India losing momentum in the global gene-editing race due to a lack of regulatory initiative? Or is the hesitation around CRISPR trials in humans a necessary safeguard?
Is our regulatory hesitation a necessary safeguard against unknowns or are we simply losing vital momentum in this global medical race.
It’s a complex, crucial dilemma.
Overview CRISPR Clinical Trials 2025 this link has enlisted the disorders under clinical trials and how far along they are in their process. Hope it helps gain some more insight.
India isn’t exactly losing ground but it’s definitely moving cautiously. Here’s the current situation and how I see it:
• India has taken steps in the right direction, with guidelines from bodies like ICMR and DBT on genome editing. But these are still in draft form, not yet solid regulations and that slows down the launch of clinical trials.
• Globally, we’re watching CRISPR in humans move ahead in countries like the US, UK, and China under strict oversight. India’s hesitation isn’t weakness, it’s due to limited infrastructure and governance to properly monitor human gene-editing safely.
In short: Yes, India might be lagging behind in visible CRISPR trials. But the hesitation is a necessary safety measure.
India still lack behind in imparting strict rules and laws related to gene editing.
Since gene editing is a very sensitive technique a lot of developments need to take place about the ethical conduct of gene editing .
India’s cautious stance on CRISPR trials may seem slow, but it reflects essential ethical safeguards. However, without clearer regulations, the nation risks falling behind in global gene-editing advancements.
What should India do about CRISPR in humans?
Accelerate clinical trial approval — we’re already behind.
Proceed cautiously — ethics and long-term effects matter more.
Focus on non-human applications first, then revisit human use.
Not sure — more public/scientific debate is needed.