By Steve Adubato, PhD

The information communicated by a variety of public health professionals and other government professionals has often been confusing and contradictory, particularly when it comes to anthrax. Clearly this is not an easy job to communicate to an especially anxious audience in the midst of a crisis-real or perceived. While this case involves government professionals, the lessons are relevant for others in business and the non-profit sectors.

It is critical to speak with one voice, one message, coming from one primary executive in charge. Yet, from the beginning, Health and Human Services' Secretary Tommy Thomson was saying that we were, "prepared" to deal with any biochemical warfare. Others in the federal government were telling a very different story. Thomson, who often seems nervous and uncomfortable in press conferences, said there was no reason to worry about anthrax when the first victim, photo editor Bob Stevens, got the disease and died. He kept saying the case was, "isolated" and did not involve any "evidence of terrorism." A few days later, Attorney General John Ashcroft told a different story. "We don't have enough information to know whether this could be related to terrorism or not." Further, Ashcroft said there was a "clear criminal investigation" going on. Two government officials with two very different messages.

The anthrax sent to Senator Tom Daschle was described by an assistant secretary of defense as "run of the mill" anthrax. Yet, a day before, a top general investigating the Daschle anthrax said it consisted of "pure spores." Translation, this could be deadly stuff. Was it "run of the mill" or was it "deadly?" Sure, you can only deal with the information you have at the time, but public health officials have a responsibility to communicate in a clear, understandable, timely, but most of all accurate fashion.

Another problem is language. When Tommy Thomson says the federal government is "prepared", what does that really mean? Prepared for what? What exactly does it mean when the FBI says beware of any "suspicious looking" packages or envelopes in the mail? Some other words that are confusing-You are "probably" not at risk or we "believe" there is not a problem. These words and expressions are left to ones' interpretation or imagination. The messages sent to postal workers regarding the safety of their workplace was very different from the message sent to congressional staff members as it relates to anthrax. Federal officials communicated that virtually everyone who worked at the Capitol should be tested for anthrax and many were put on antibiotics. Postal workers, many of whom were in areas where anthrax laced letters passed through, were told not to worry, go to work, and that there is no need to get tested or go on antibiotics. All that changed after several postal workers got anthrax and two of them died. Different messages communicated to different audiences about the same issue.

Finally, how do we deal with this-Postmaster General John Potter says now that "the threat is in the mail…there is no guarantee that the mail is safe." Yet White House spokesman Ari Fleisher said on the same day that Americans shouldn't worry because the mail is "overwhelmingly safe." Who are we supposed to believe?

Again, government officials have an incredibly difficult job to do in these pressure-filled days. However, much of the problem is a product of a sloppy, uncoordinated and unprofessional communication strategy. Let's just hope it gets better form here. Please write to me and let me know how you would want our government officials to communicate about anthrax and other biochemical threats.