Is the Purpose of Communication Just to do something or to Get Something Useful Done by those who can do so?
Some may dismiss this question as an irresponsible one when the world is facing the crisis of resistance to antimicrobials (RAM). In our previous contribution, we have explained why we suggest the use of the abbreviation RAM rather than the so-called AMR. However, we are aware that it took a long time for many to accept that the earth went around the sun even after it has been accepted even by the church. Today, ‘experts’ of every ilk are analogous to the ‘infallible’ clergy of the past.
It is with some regret we note that the two critical questions posed above have been completely ignored by the contributors. Perhaps, this may be due to the fact that they have no time to read what the others have said before them. It is unfortunate, but one has only a little hope in changing this common tendency. So, we shall now try to point out the importance of the questions we have raised here.
Let us assume that the FAO should communicate to the public ‘about RAM’. What do the contributors expect to happen then?
- After these communications using electronic personal interchange platforms and other methods they have proposed, what do they expect to happen?
- Remember what they want to communicate is that there is a problem; how do they expect their audiences to respond to the crisis when those emphatically advocated methods do not tell the people what to do?
- They have underlined that the public knows very little about the problem and have even proposed story telling as means of ‘getting the message across?’ But they do not include in their message telling people what useful things the public can do.
- Then how can one expect people to respond in any useful way?
- Is it not amply clear that the authorities will have to undertake the correct steps to deal with the problem? And to do so, they require a different set of information viz., the nature of the problem and how best to solve it.
- Public may not understand the scientific basis of what to do and it would be too much to expect it in any country regardless of its technological advances.
Those who have read this contribution this far, will now begin to see how one may do a great deal without contributing anything to solve a problem. True, it will cost a considerable amount of time and money which might give some a sense of having done something. But is that something useful? It is clear that it would have no effect on the problem of RAM.
In our previous contribution, we have included all types of living pathogen ranging from liver flukes and tape worms, protozoans, fungi, bacteria and viruses. However, we did not think that it would be relevant to give an exhaustive list of pathogens in each category. A longer list of bacteria was given to illustrate some of those pathogens that could thrive in nature when the conditions are favourable to them, hence, they cannot be eliminated from earth.
Those and some others will be spread throughout the world carried from land to land by trade and travel just as the Corona virus did. Therefore, it is a global problem that requires a concerted international effort. No country or a continent can solve this global crisis by its own actions. We have explained what international steps may be useful, and individual nations ought to contribute to that endeavour if we really wish to deal with this daunting challenge.
Therefore, we will reiterate here in general terms what communication could do at global and national levels. Its content is communicated to a specific target audience in order to encourage its members to undertake appropriate action to solve the problem. These audiences fall into two groups; those who have the authority to undertake appropriate action against RAM and those who can compel the former to act. Those in the first group are the authorities both global and national while the latter group embraces the general public.
Thus we propose the following two sets of communication, each directed at a particular audience with respect to what each of them are willing and able to do in real life:
- To international and national authorities; an aptly worded description of the problem and what they should do as well as the urgent need of rapid action.
- To general public; a simpler version of the problem, what they should encourage the authorities to do, what they can do about their own personal hygiene and the need for quick action.
What precisely each audience ought to do has been fully described in our previous contribution and will not be repeated here. We shall not speculate on the ability of the electronic personal exchange platforms which has been named by some previous contributors. The complexity of the problem of RAM and what each group ought to do can hardly be compressed into a few lines of electronic text. Therefore, we are sceptical about its efficacy. But, one could always hope for the impossible i.e., reason and fundamental scientific principals may win over reductive eye-candy.
Best wishes!
Lal Manavado.
Sr. Lal Manavado