First, a thank you to Sarah Dewitt () for her beautiful sketchnote. It is an amazing visual representation of the funding conversation at the 2015 .
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.
What is science communication?
Is science communication talking to other scientists (and scientists to be)?
Is science communication talking with kid and adult nonexperts about science?
Is science communication marketing?
Is science communication open-access science?
Is science communication a two-way dialogue (aka engagement)?