India, June 11 -- The future of human reproduction and genetic design is accelerating faster than most people understand, driven not by national debates or international accords, but by software startups, biotech investors, and quiet breakthroughs in fertility clinics. Nucleus Genomics recently unveiled Nucleus Embryo, a genetic screening platform that allows prospective parents to assess up to 20 embryos for more than 900 conditions and traits. These include not only polygenic risk scores for diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer's but also traits such as intelligence, height, and anxiety. In short, it offers a pathway to genetic optimisation - allowing parents to select not only healthier babies but the human features they want. Orchid, another US startup, pioneered full-genome sequencing of IVF embryos for disease screening. Once exclusive to the ultra-wealthy, Orchid's services are rapidly becoming more affordable, pointing to a future where embryo selection could become a standard step in family planning for both the middle and upper class. Meanwhile, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, known for backing radical biotech ventures, has announced plans to launch a US company that would go beyond selection into embryo editing. Thanks to recent advances in base editing, it is now possible to alter individual DNA letters with high precision rewriting, rather than merely reading the code of life. The commercial race toward Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) babies has begun - and this is something I have long been both excited and terrified about. In a 2017 Washington Post article, I asked: "Human editing has just become possible. Are we ready for the consequences?" I warned that CRISPR had made embryo editing technically feasible, but that society wasn't prepared for the moral fallout. I feared we would drift from preventing disease to designing our children. We have crossed this Rubicon. While the global community debates ethics and oversight, China is racing ahead with few restraints. Chinese scientists are editing the genes of animals - and even human embryos - not only to treat disease but to enhance traits such as intelligence and strength. Their goal appears to be the creation of so-called superhumans. Without international standards and ethical guardrails, unchecked ambition in any one country can pose risks for all of humanity. India must pay close attention. It has already misused reproductive technology: Ultrasound machines meant for foetal health monitoring were widely repurposed for sex selection. In Haryana, the sex ratio at birth has declined to 910 girls for every 1,000 boys. In a society shaped by caste, colourism, and academic pressure, gene editing could easily be co-opted to entrench inequality under the banner of 'better futures'. But more than vigilance, India must lead. With a deep-rooted traditions of spiritualism, karma and ethics, and respect for human dignity, it is uniquely positioned to offer the moral leadership this moment demands. Its scientific community is world-class, and its track record - from generic medicine to vaccine equity - shows it can pair innovation with compassion. The concerns extend far beyond reproduction. Gene-edited crops could marginalise small farmers if patented seeds are controlled by large corporations. CRISPR-based therapies, already costing more than $500,000 in the West, could deepen biological inequality. Even gene drives, designed to eliminate diseases such as malaria, could threaten delicate ecosystems like the Sundarbans if not deployed with care. To lead responsibly, India must act on four fronts. First, accelerate research. Universities and public institutions should partner with socially responsible entrepreneurs to build local expertise in gene editing, synthetic biology, and bioethics. This collaboration can ensure innovation is aligned with the public interest and rooted in Indian values rather than imported priorities. Second, access must be equitable. India has done this before with lifesaving generic drugs and can do this again. Public funding and subsidies must ensure CRISPR therapies reach rural and tribal populations suffering from genetic disorders like thalassemia. Third, the entire regulatory framework needs to be updated because existing biotech laws predate CRISPR. A new structure, co-created with scientists, ethicists, civil society, and patients, must define what is allowed, what is off-limits, and how oversight will function. Real engagement with the public, not just top-down mandates, will be essential. Fourth, India must lead globally. As it did in championing affordable vaccines, it can help shape international norms for genetic science, banning non-medical trait selection, regulating gene drives, and insisting on transparency and accountability. India can set the ethical benchmark, not merely follow it. We now have a rare opportunity to prove that scientific progress and moral clarity can coexist, but the window is narrow. We cannot rely on Silicon Valley, where profit is the only true metric of success, nor on China, where State control and repression define scientific ambition. Both paths risk taking humanity into dangerous territory. The world needs a third way, rooted in spiritual values, ethical reasoning, and the belief that technology must serve the many, not just the powerful, and this is the role India must play....