About

Dietram A. Scheufele is a Professor and Taylor-Bascom Chair in the Life Sciences Communication department at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He is also an Investigator and Vilas Distinguished Achievement Professor in the Morgridge Institute for Research, as well as a Distinguished Research Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center. His current research focuses on how algorithmically curated information environments fundamentally reshape how individuals make sense of the world around them. His recent work includes studies on mis- and disinformation, open science, and the societal impacts of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and human brain organoids. Throughout his career, Scheufele has held professorships, fellowships, or visiting appointments at several prestigious institutions, including Cornell University, Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, Technische Universität Dresden, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Universität Wien, and the University of Utah. He is an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the German National Academy of Science and Engineering, and a fellow of multiple organizations including the American Academy of Political & Social Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the International Communication Association, and the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters. His consulting work spans organizations such as DeepMind, Porter Novelli, PBS, WHO, the World Bank, and various private philanthropies.

Research topics

• Political Science
• Sociology
• Public relations
• Social Science
• Computer Science
• Psychology
• Internet privacy
• Law
• Knowledge management
• Social psychology
• Epistemology
• Medicine
• Business
• Philosophy
• Engineering ethics
• Engineering
• Biology
• Data science
• Environmental ethics
• Pedagogy
• Genetics

Selected publications

• Reply to González-Bailón and Lazer: Industry control and conflicts of interest in social media research

  2025-11-18

  articleSenior author

  This manuscript critiques industry control and conflicts of interest in academic-industry collaborations in social media research. When academics rely on social media platforms’ classifiers, concepts, and categorization methods, it undermines the replicability of findings. Not disclosing that reliance also impedes meaningful, intersubjective peer review. Industry control over data collection and curation raises concerns about the self-interested goals of industry players in such collaborations, especially when the social media platforms claim the findings are highly policy-relevant. We specifically discuss Meta’s intentional deployment of "break glass" measures—changing the active algorithm to reduce polarization—during data collections in those collaborations. Since none of the original publications explicitly referenced these manipulations, fundamental questions arise about data reliability and transparency.

  PublisherDOI

• University scientists’ willingness to participate in public engagement: A concept explication

  PLoS ONE · 2025-11-25

  articleOpen accessCorresponding

  Public engagement is increasingly recognized as a critical responsibility of the scientific community. Scientists in academic settings are well positioned to lead these efforts, but they are not always willing or able to participate in engagement. Public engagement can encompass a range of activities that may require different resources and skills, and which may have different outcomes for both scientists and non-scientists. Therefore, understanding which activities scientists are willing to participate in is critical for supporting their engagement efforts at the institutional level. Using survey data from a case study of science faculty at a large land-grant university in the United States, we conduct a systematic concept explication to better understand the dimensions of public engagement activities that scientists are willing to participate in. Based on thirteen different activities, we define and analyze the reliability of five dimensions of engagement: public scholarship, educational activities, direct engagement with public audiences, stakeholder-focused collaboration, and industry engagement. We also examine the validity of these five dimensions and how factors including institutional culture and norms, professional status, and attitudes towards engagement relate to scientists' willingness to participate in engagement. Our results provide a robust categorization of willingness to engage as a blueprint for future research in this space.

  PublisherDOI

• The Human Factor in AI Governance: Dispositional Predictors of Public Concern and Regulatory Support

  Technology in Society · 2025-01-01

  articleOpen accessSenior author
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Our changing information ecosystem for science and why it matters for effective science communication

  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2025-06-30 · 16 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Current information ecologies present unique opportunities to communicate science and engage diverse publics in science. Unfortunately, they also present unique challenges. Here, we outline how the public sphere for science is transforming as media evolve, and we connect these changes to the high-stakes issue context of COVID-19. We argue that scientific organizations' struggles to adapt to evolving media are linked, in part, to asymmetries in which social media platforms prevent researchers from producing reliable data that could inform institutional change and improve science communication. This has been apparent in studies of echo chambers and filter bubbles. Producing a more usable evidence base, we conclude, will require that scholars a) obtain access to proprietary data, b) reconceptualize information ecologies as social systems, c) avoid ceding core research tasks to platforms, d) address ethical issues, and e) grapple with the urgency of moving forward productively.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Connecting Social Media Use With Education- and Race-Based Gaps in Factual and Perceived Knowledge Across Wicked Science Issues

  Social Media + Society · 2025-01-01 · 2 citations

  articleOpen access

  Using three U.S. public opinion survey datasets, this study examines whether use of specific social media platforms affects the gaps in factual and perceived knowledge of three wicked science issues among Americans with different racial and socioeconomic makeup. Less-educated Americans are less likely to gain factual knowledge but more likely to gain perceived knowledge from increased social media use than more-educated Americans. Racial minorities are more likely to gain both factual and perceived science knowledge than White Americans with increased social media use. Furthermore, social media use was linked to wider education-based gaps in factual knowledge and narrower education-based gaps in perceived knowledge among racial minorities than among Whites. Theoretical and practical implications for equitable science communication are discussed.

  PublisherDOI

• An agenda for science communication research and practice

  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2025-06-30 · 6 citations

  articleOpen accessCorresponding

  Science should not unilaterally dictate individuals' decisions or public policies. Yet, it provides a vital source of information for societies and individuals that can often improve outcomes and well-being. This requires, however, the effective communication of scientific information. We identify two paradigms for science communication. One focuses on dissemination, often seeking to inform, reframe, or correct beliefs. Another emphasizes participation and engagement with the goal of improving public understanding of science and scientists' understanding of the public's concerns, needs, and values. We argue that participatory approaches better address contemporary challenges concerning scientific uncertainty, politicized science, artificial value neutrality, and a reactive science communication infrastructure. These approaches though need to move away from transactional partnerships toward more cocreation and coproduction of knowledge. They also need to focus more on less motivated and/or engaged populations. Investment in a participatory infrastructure is crucial given that even the most path-breaking science only matters if it can be adequately communicated to relevant stakeholders.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Reply to González-Bailón and Lazer: Industry control and conflicts of interest in social media research

  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2025-11-17

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Gonzlez-Bailn and Lazer ( 1 ) offer a charitable reframing of their collaborations with Meta and the influence the company exerted over the research process in their team's 2023 articles.This reframing, however, is inconsistent with their team's own explicit admission that they relied on internal Meta "classifiers, concepts, and categorization methods" to estimate variables like users' political views, topic classifiers to categorize content, including misinformation ( 2 ).Using internal industry classifiers raises serious red flags in two areas.First, the reliance on industry-controlled conceptualization and categorization of data by academic researchers undermines meaningful, intersubjective ( 3 ) peer review and the replicability of what Meta claims are highly policy-relevant findings.Second, industry control over data collection and curation raises concerns about the selfinterested goals of industry players in such collaborations ( 4 , 5 ), especially with platforms like Meta being chronically reluctant to disclose to academic researchers how they classify content as disinformation, for instance, even if such sharing is mandated by legislation like the EU's Digital Services Act ( 6 ).Concerns about Meta's long-term strategy to protect their corporate and policy interests are exacerbated by the company's intentional deployment of "break glass" measures to attenuate polarization and change "the active Facebook algorithm in a way that caused the platform to provide less polarizing and more reliable news" during the time the studies in question were in the field ( 7 ).None of the publications in Science or Nature explicitly referenced these break-glass measures.Instead, they were subsequently reported by other researchers in response to the original studies ( 8 ).Raising further concerns about the validity of their findings, Gonzlez-Bailn and Lazer's team openly acknowledges in their response to Bagchi et al. that if "Facebook [had] made different choices regarding how to rank content during the 2020 US elections, our results might have been different" ( 9 ).

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Emerging Debates About Breakthrough Science: Understanding the Interplay of Values and Cognition in Shaping Attitudes on Human Brain Organoids

  Science Communication · 2025-01-26 · 6 citations

  article

  Human brain organoids (HBOs) hold the potential for major medical breakthroughs but raise ethical considerations that could intensify public scrutiny and regulatory challenges. This study explores the underlying value and cognitive pathways shaping public opinion of HBOs. Findings reveal political ideology correlates to moral opposition to HBOs, regardless of information intake. Religiosity predicts moral opposition, while deference to science correlates with support for HBOs. Moreover, risk-benefit perceptions shape public attitudes, but this relationship is moderated by deference to science. These findings lead to a better understanding of public opinion dynamics early in the issue attention cycle for emerging wicked science.

  PublisherDOI

• Race and gender biases persist in public perceptions of scientists’ credibility

  Scientific Reports · 2025-03-31 · 5 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior authorCorresponding

  This study examines how race and gender stereotypes affect scientists' ability to communicate with diverse US public audiences. Through a unique collaboration between researchers and filmmakers, we conducted an online survey experiment with a nationally representative U.S. quota sample, including an oversample of Black respondents (N = 1637). We found that Black female scientists face challenges in being perceived as warm and competent compared to their peers. Our findings revealed significant intersectional biases: Black female scientists received the lowest ratings in both warmth and competence, with ratings dropping further when introducing a story about a White patient. Black male scientists received consistently high ratings across experimental conditions, particularly showing elevated warmth scores when discussing a Black protagonist with sickle cell anemia. They also maintained high competence ratings whether working with Black or White protagonists. This pattern suggests that while Black scientists generally faced discrimination, Black men's gender afforded them certain privileges that were not extended to Black women in scientific fields. Our findings highlight persistent, intersectional biases and emphasize the need for comprehensive approaches to diversity and inclusion in scientific communication, which includes addressing the prejudices faced by female scientists and scientists of color.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Reply to González-Bailón et al.: Industry control and conflicts of interest in social media research

  2025-10-31

  articleSenior author

  This manuscript critiques industry control and conflicts of interest in academic-industry collaborations in social media research. When academics rely on social media platforms’ classifiers, concepts, and categorization methods, it undermines the replicability of findings. Not disclosing that reliance also impedes meaningful, intersubjective peer review. Industry control over data collection and curation raises concerns about the self-interested goals of industry players in such collaborations, especially when the social media platforms claim the findings are highly policy-relevant. We specifically discuss Meta’s intentional deployment of "break glass" measures—changing the active algorithm to reduce polarization—during data collections in those collaborations. Since none of the original publications explicitly referenced these manipulations, fundamental questions arise about data reliability and transparency.

  PublisherDOI

Recent grants

• Enabling decision-relevant debates about human genome editing

  NSF · $450k · 2018–2022

Frequent coauthors

• Dominique Brossard

  University of Wisconsin–Madison

  227 shared

• Michael A. Xenos

  University of Wisconsin–Madison

  92 shared

• Elizabeth A. Corley

  Royal Marsden Hospital

  42 shared

• Emily L. Howell

  Texas A&M University

  31 shared

• Sara K. Yeo

  University of Utah

  28 shared

• Michael A. Cacciatore

  University of Georgia

  25 shared

• Leona Yi-Fan Su

  24 shared

• Nicole M. Krause

  23 shared

Education

• Ph.D., Communication

  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  1991

• M.S., Communication

  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  1987

• B.A., Communication

  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  1985

Awards & honors

• Elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Elected member of the German National Academy of Science and…
• Fellow of the American Academy of Political & Social Science
• Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Sc…
• Fellow of the International Communication Association