Scientific American has a rather deeply researched piece on something that feels like it’s about politics at first, since it’s following the donations of a disgraced late financier and sex predator… but it’s really a story about how science gets done, which questions get asked, who is paying for the answers, and why:
So, legal opinions aside, what did Epstein want from science? The simplest explanation is that Epstein collected prominent people. His financial networking relied on creating an aura of wealth and influence to entice investors. He was a “people collector” who traded information and favors, said Barry Levine, one of his biographers, in a 2025 BBC report. Scientists might have just been one of many influential groups he cultivated at a time that was “a cultural high-water mark for scientists as celebrities,” says Declan Fahy, an associate professor of science communication at Dublin City University in Ireland and author of The New Celebrity Scientists. Scientists wrote best-selling books, appeared in Vanity Fair and Vogue and gave viral TED Talks that were elevated online. “They moved into the power elite,” Fahy says, and so made sense for Epstein to cultivate.
According to Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s former girlfriend and majordomo, who was convicted in 2021 of sex trafficking, conspiracy and transportation of a minor for illegal sexual activity, Epstein was particularly fascinated by brain science. In a July 2025 interview Maxwell told the DOJ that connections she had made through her father, Robert Maxwell, founder of scientific publisher Pergamon Press, led to her introducing Epstein to the Santa Fe Institute, a home to many high-profile scientists. (Epstein donated $25,000 to the institute in 2010.) “Epstein would have dinners at the house that I was tasked to organize and the scientists were a very major component of that,” she said, according to the DOJ transcript.
…
The Edge Foundation was ubiquitous in science writing circles from 1998 to 2018, annually publishing books on scientific topics. It was also connected to the physicist Lawrence Krauss, a former member of Scientific American’s board of advisers, who was removed following sexual misconduct allegations in 2018. Released e-mail records show that Krauss asked Epstein for advice on handling those charges. Krauss has denied the misconduct allegations against him; none of the communications cited allege wrongdoing in connection with Epstein. (In 2014 Epstein was even invited to two Scientific American editorial meetings, which he did not attend.) Public records suggest the Edge Foundation received $638,000 from Epstein from 2001 to 2015, making him its major funder.
…
One disturbing explanation for Epstein’s support of science comes from his interest in genetic determinism. This idea, which dates to the eugenics era, is still fashionable in some wealthy circles and can be seen in companies now offering designer baby services for embryos of would-be parents. In 2019 the New York Times reported that Epstein had ambitions of founding a “baby ranch” to raise children of women he impregnated (not unlike “secret compound” plans reportedly shared by SpaceX and Tesla chief Elon Musk).
“Given this stance, it is particularly disturbing that he focused his largesse on research on the genetic basis of human behavior,” wrote Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science, in Scientific American in 2020. “Scientists might claim that Epstein’s money in no way caused them to lower their standards, but we have broad evidence that the interests of funders often influence the work done.” (Regarding Epstein, Oreskes now adds, “The continued press attention reminds us that—rightly or wrongly—we are judged by the company we keep, and some money is tainted.”)
Perhaps the only direct evidence of Epstein’s scientific ambitions comes from a proposal he made in 2005 to be a Visiting Fellow at Harvard. “I wish to study the reasons behind group behavior, such as ‘social prosthetic systems,’” he wrote in an application proposing magnetic resonance imaging studies on human volunteers. “That is, other people can act as ‘prosthetics’ insofar as they augment our cognitive abilities and help us to regulate our emotions—and thereby essentially serve as extensions of ourselves,” he added, with a scientific gloss neatly encapsulating his view of humanity’s role in his life. Harvard approved him twice for the fellowship, though a 2020 investigation later noted his utter lack of qualifications.
—
There are lots and lots of links in the source.