Fully innovative, collaborative and proactive
I've been writing a series of articles, all having something in common: "The Roots of Nano-Fear Decoded". I have addressed briefly some of the main roots of nano-fear:
- Nanopollution. The articles dedicated to nanopollution are:
- Nanotoxicity. The articles dedicated to nanotoxicity are:
- "Nanotoxicity in Humans";
- "Indicators of Nanotoxicity";
- "Some of The Main Types of Nanoengineered Nanoparticles Reported as Nanotoxic";
- "Nanoengineered Nanoparticles in Consumer Goods";
- "A World Without Nanotoxicity";
- Nanoregulation. The articles dedicated to nanotoxicity are:
- "Why Nanoregulation Must be a Top Priority on Political Agendas";
- This current article;
- Nanoeducation. The article dedicated to nanoeducation is:
- Ethics (no articles published in NanoMedRev Blog yet);
- Media Professionals (no articles published in NanoMedRev Blog yet).
Again, like the previous one, this article is dedicated to nanoregulation. I point strategic advice for the future of nanoregulation. Once again, my goal in this article is to contribute to the nanoregulation to become a real legal instrument to be used to its full potential by ALL countries, thereby contributing to a better world for ourselves, our children, our grandchildren and so on. As always, I'll try to do my best.
Nanoregulation, to be prepared to meet the challenges of the future, must have certain characteristics:
- Nanoregulation must be fully innovative and collaborative;
- Nanoregulation must be proactive.
Nanoregulation Must be Fully Innovative And Collaborative
Nanoregulation must be fully innovative. Well, some already are by now. In my personal opinion, FDA already is fully innovative. However, this concept must spread to all countries and country regions. Gone are the days when the regulation concerning the scientific and technological aspects and its relationship with society had chances to progress without considering innovation a priority.
We live in times of reinvention. Any project that is born must have a component of innovation. This rule becomes more rigid for large scale projects. This is the case with nanoregulation, the way as I address it in my articles.
Innovation involves doing something really new, something that has never been done before and proven better. To innovate implies an entire change of mindsets, attitudes, behaviours and processes.
Are these requirements that I just described sufficient?
Nowadays any major project goes far way only doing something really new, that has never been done before, demonstrably better, as a result of a total change of mindsets, attitudes, behaviours and processes.
What is missing then that is so vital to enabling innovation and let it go far away, fly high and bring forth good fruit? Collaboration.
Collaboration is the key. Collaboration is the name of the game. In the times we live in, there is no innovation without collaboration. It's as simple as that: collaborative innovation.
Therefore, back to the approach to nanoregulation, nanoregulation needs to be really innovative in a way that has never been done before and demonstrably better for building a better world for US ALL. An innovative nanoregulation must involve a profound change of mentalities, attitudes, behaviours and processes. But, above all, innovative nanoregulation must be based on the concept of collaborative innovation.
Nanoregulation Must be Proactive
Nanoregulation must be proactive. Nanoregulation must not adopt a passive attitude: waiting for the emerging of issues and problems and then solve them. In other words, nanoregulatory entities reacting to face new situations that had just earned critical mass is not enough.
On the contrary, nanoregulation must anticipate emerging situations. To implement this concept, nanoregulatory authorities must develop mechanisms of permanent monitoring of what is being done, what is happening, reporting emergent situations when these have not yet gained critical mass or expression. Nanoregulators must be open to sharing experiences and opinions of various professionals from various sectors of industry, consumers, users, patients and organizations related to ethics.
Acting this way, when some of these emerging situations gain critical mass, the nanoregulation organizations have already developed work, including debate, opinion listening, sharing professional experiences, all in the context of collaborative innovation such as described above. In other words: when some of these emerging situations gain critical mass, the nanoregulation organizations are already prepared to face them. This way, the solution comes faster and better.
To suggest and give strategic advice is very interesting, but if one does not reach more detailed explanations, the value fades out
Therefore, due to this reason, I will point as examples two specific situations: combat and prevention of nanopollution and nanotoxicity.Regarding the combat and prevention of nanopollution, on my article "Fighting & Preventing Nanopollution", I proposed the creation of a network of nanopollution observatories: observatories operated by highly qualified professionals, equipped with sophisticated computer technology, databases, GPS technology and operating with the aid of satellites. These observatories must be linked to external probes and sensors placed at critical locations, providing these observatories with real-time data. Therefore, these nanopollution observatories will operate with real-time risk monitoring, risk detection and risk assessment. This modus operandi will allow the ability to send automatic warnings (or alerts) to the operating teams. The automatic warnings (or alerts) may be scaled in warning (or alert) levels, linked to pre-established protocols of measures to be triggered accordingly - all these observatories linked on a whole network.
Regarding the combat and prevention of nanotoxicity, on my article "A World Without Nanotoxicity", I proposed the creation of a network of screening centres. These screening centres must operate at full sync and collaboration among themselves and with the nanopollution observatories. These screening centres must be operated by highly qualified professionals, equipped with sophisticated computer technology and databases, receiving constantly reported data from R&D facilities (academic and industry) as new discovered, engineered or already known nanosized molecular structures are nanofabricated, engineered or employed. This modus operandi, as I described, will allow the ability to send automatic warnings (or alerts) to the operating teams. The automatic warnings (or alerts) may be scaled in warning (or alert) levels, linked to pre-established protocols of measures to be triggered accordingly.
Thus, both nanopollution observatories and screening centres, operating in full articulation and collaboration among them and with nanoregulatory organizations will provide a precious help nanoregulation to be proactive.