Recap Part 2: Going Public - Investing in Science Communication for Scientists

We discovered that questions about how to fund science communication are closely linked to questions on how to define science communication. So, let's cut to the chase, what do we mean by science communication? Here is the collection of thoughts on what science communication is (and is not) from a symposium about funding scicomm at the 2015 AAAS annual meeting.


  1. First, a thank you to Sarah Dewitt (@sldewit) for her beautiful sketchnote. It is an amazing visual representation of the #scicomm funding conversation at the 2015 #AAASmtg.
  2. Second, a short explanation of the recap part 2. Some of the symposium participants felt that there is no way identify a return on investment (ROI) or develop a value proposition for science communication without defining science communication. Not everyone agreed, but at times "how to fund science communication" became so entangled with definitions, goals, and expected outcomes of science communication, it was hard to tell which way was up. So this recap is an attempt to disentangle the conversation. Some of the content here is repeated from Part 1, the case in point of how tangled up the conversation can be.
  3. What is science communication?

  4. Is science communication talking to other scientists (and scientists to be)?
  5. Is science communication talking with kid and adult nonexperts about science?
  6. Is science communication marketing?
  7. Is science communication open-access science?
  8. Is science communication a two-way dialogue (aka engagement)?