The prison warden told Paul Newman’s Cool Hand Luke in the 1967 film that “what we have here is a failure to communicate.”

It’s based on an authoritarian model and is the oldest excuse out there; all kinds of problems could be solved if everyone just communicated better, especially scientists and others.

Nope.

The anti-authoritarian heros of great American movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, The Blues Brothers and Stripes all found different ways to communicate, in unconventional ways.

So when the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ issued a ponderous report on Improving the Scientific Community’s Understanding of Public Concerns about Science and Technology, which examined the ways in which scientists engage with the public, and how their mutual understanding could be improved, I thought, who writes this crap, in a release about communications?

The report concluded (in a somber tone),

Scientists and the public both share a responsibility for the divide. Scientists and technical experts sometimes take for granted that their work will be viewed as ultimately serving the public good. Members of the public can react viscerally and along ideological lines, but they can also raise important issues that deserve consideration.

Scientific issues require an ‘anticipatory approach.’ A diverse group of stakeholders — research scientists, social scientists, public engagement experts, and skilled communicators — should collaborate early to identify potential scientific controversies and the best method to address resulting public concerns.

That sounds like BS. I’ve sat in meetings for years where well-meaning people have gone on-and-on about how the public or the media gets it wrong, how the public needs to be better educated, and how communications is some sort of road to salvation.

And none of these reports recommend what people should do day-to-day.

What we’ve found from our food safety infosheet research is that elements of effective communication involve:

• storytelling focused on specific outbreaks and individual incidents of foodborne illness;

• information that gets people talking;

• surprise or shock using humorous or graphical images, and data; and,

• information that has meaning to an individual.

Another report issued last month concluded the FDA must communicate more clearly with health care professionals and consumers during foodborne illness outbreaks and food safety recalls.

"Despite awareness of recent food recalls, an illusion of invulnerability and a lack of knowledge about the food recall process appear to be widespread among American consumers. These findings signify the need for a clear, coordinated and centralized communication strategy for food recalls."

Nope. More panels and reports and Dr. Phil-style interventions are a waste: for food safety, say what you do, do what you say, prove it.