Why India now needs a Genomic Protection Act
As someone has deeply involved in accurate medical and longevity care, it is time to go beyond the fragmented data protection framework for India and implement a dedicated Genomic Protection Act, which prioritizes clinical inspection, moral stewardships and personal rights.
The recent transplant of 23andme, once-selected pioneer of direct-to-conjumer genetic tests, should not be seen only as the story of Silicon Valley. This is a powerful caution story for India, which now stands on the threshold of a genomic revolution.
As someone has deeply involved in accurate medical and longevity care, it is time to go beyond the fragmented data protection framework for India and implement a dedicated Genomic Protection Act, which prioritizes clinical inspection, moral stewardships and personal rights.
India is a genetic mosaic. With more than 4,000 different ethnic-linguistic communities, centuries of Andogamy, and a huge reservoir of rare variants, our population represents both a treasure for research and a potential mine for exploitation. The fall of 23andme was not just about the failure of a business model. It was about belief.
It has been shown that when the data privacy is formed later and the genetic results are served without medical interpretation, not empowerment, but leading to anxiety. We should not repeat these mistakes.
Genomic data is not like browsing history. It cannot be removed or replaced. It is not only aware of the individual, but also about their children, communities and future generations.
Once it is leaked or misused, the results are irreversible. In India, where public awareness about data rights is still developing and health literacy is very different, the risk of reducing DNA is very high.
Yes, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act is one step ahead. But it leads to the nuances required to control genomic data and lack of granulation, which is fundamentally different from other forms of personal information.
We need immediate law that defines who owns your genetic data determines the limit to share how it can be shared, and consensus ensures that is layered and running, broader and not once.
Four columns of a genomic protection act
Physician -headed tests: The genomic insight must be referred to within the clinical framework. Raw data causes confusion; Data explained is cared for. Imagine a longevity screen that integrates a patient’s APOE status with cholesterol levels, cognitive assessment and family history – for a prevention roadmap, not just a risk percentage. It is an accurate medicine.
Ethical Data Stewardship: Any storage, transfer or analysis of genomic data should be controlled by moral boards and preserved under encrypted, India-based server. Data sanctity should not be compromised for business benefits.
Granted consent and opt-out rights: Individuals should be able to choose which parts of their data are used, how long and by whom. Consent must be canceled. A person should have the right to know who did their genome and for what purpose.
Governance on population-mammary: As India goes into population genomics and public-private cooperations, our policies should ensure that innovation does not carry forward regulation. Genomic information should never become a tool for discrimination, it should be in insurance, employment or marriage.
India has the opportunity to create a gold-standard genomic ecosystem, which learns from global misunderstandings and faith, transparency and scientific integrity from roots. The fall of 23andme is not the end of consumer genomics. This is a wake-up call. We should lead with care, not just curiosity.
It is not a question whether India will embrace genomics. The question is whether we will do it responsibly. A Genomic Protection Act is no longer optional. This is necessary, for science, for morality, and for the future of every Indian genome.
(Disclaimer: It is a writer. The ideas and opinions expressed by doctors are their independent professional decisions, and we do not take any responsibility for the accuracy of their views. It should not be considered as an alternative to the doctor’s advice.)
