Jeffrey Epstein’s Harvard connections show how money can distort research

> This is just an ambiguity we have to live with.

This just isn't true. I'm quite sure that Epstein supported what he thought was good science. I'm also quite sure that Epstein had opinions about why his treatment of girls was justified. We do not have to accept that people who have violated our basic ideas about humanity should be allowed to do science. The most obvious example is the controversy around what to do with the results of the Nazi / Unit 731 human torture / experiments[1]. Both the idea that Epstein should be allowed to fund research and the idea that he should not are ethical positions. We should not pretend we don't have a choice.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation#Mod...

Sure, this article and "people's response" are indeed a reaction to terrible people driving science without any, uh, mediation.

The development of science from the situation of renaissance proto-scientists requiring noble patrons to NSF grants being evaluated based on ostensibly objective criteria was a progressive development.

The rise of direct grants by the very wealthy - for whatever they believe science should be - is a regressive development. It's a development that likely won't destroy science but one which has the potential distort it by moving results in the directions these very wealthy patrons desire.

That’s not clear at all. In fact it’s a quite reasonable interpretation to think all his involvement in academics was a way to impart credibility to himself, credibility which was then exploited to forge relationships with powerful people who helped him get away with raping minors.

Epstein's intrest in eugenics is pretty well documented. I don't think it's a stretch to think his special interest in funding an evolution research team at Harvard was directly related to his abhorrent views. Sure his funding probably has had some higher order positive effects but it seems incredibly silly to suggest that such a monsterous person was donating all this money becuase of his passion for science. His constant oversight suggests that he probably had an agenda and use in mind for the research and I find it incredibly hard to believe it was anything good/humanitarian. You also have to keep in mind this is not just a guy with bad views, this is a person who has wielded money and power to directly cause evil for a very long time.

The problem people have with Epstein's "support for science" is that he spent his life collecting influential people, and, in at least once notorious instance but likely many others, deploying the influence of those people to his ends, which included the trafficking of minors for rape. One reasonably asks, "was Epstein actually trying to fund science at Harvard? Or was brokering donations for programs he could brag about having a hand in getting off the ground just an easy way to create social bonds with the world's most influential people?" One then looks at what Pinker did for Epstein in 2007 and, probably, quickly finds the answer to that question.

This was also the problem with the MIT Media Lab's policy of denying named donations for Epstein while allowing him to broker donations behind the scenes. They were getting money from powerful people, because of Epstein's work. But MIT and the Media Lab's management missed what Epstein was getting out of the deal.

No one is black or white, they are just shades of grey.

Love for science is one thing, love for influence is another. Science at least demands to be critical here and taking a look at which fields he invested is certainly a worthwhile endeavor. For science.

> individuals can pick and choose lines of inquiry

It is not scientific to think that would not influence results. Of course his DNA might have been just a selfless offering for scientific inquiry and maybe the pope was right all along.

Science can nurture naïveté to encourage impartiality. But sometimes you need to know when to drop it.

Do you have more information on this? Is there evidence that funding recipients Martin Nowak and George Church actually had their area of study directed by Epstein, or that the science was fundamentally flawed.

On a conceptual level, there is no reason that evil people cant use dirty money to fund good academics researchers that they happen to find interesting.

But unless he was sneaking in after-hours to change experiments' results, it doesn't imply any research was distorted. Even something like "key card access" may have been entirely ceremonial in practice, if his actual visits were just scheduled meetings with real staff members.

In fact, as an example of the kind of 'aura-of-respectability' he was purchasing, it's an example of how the research may have been left uninfluenced – because other trinkets-of-association were delivered. If he got some really, really expensive equivalents of 'Harvard Sweatshirts' for his money, it's less likely he'd be changing lines-of-inquiry in research programs.

I don't find the 'visiting fellow' thing very significant. Harvard & others seem fairly generous with such empty titles, a bit like honorary degrees, that cost them no money but get some funding or reflected-glory back on them. (And, it's not clear if this particular credentialist tchotchke was pre- or post- Epstein's first conviction.)

You are of course correct that it's sometimes surprising the tiny amounts of money people commit ethical infractions to chase. But there's no evidence, or anecdotes, in this article that rich-person money is more corrupting in research matters than that from large institutions, including foundations & the government. The favor-trading, citation-log-rolling, buttering-up, ego-stroking, clique-protecting and everything else academia is known for seems just as bad, or worse, among those competing for traditional "panel-allocated" resources as among those receiving rich-person grants.

I can't say I know anyone who would be __ethically__ opposed to insider trading. From a regulatory view point most people would be against it, but I don't think anyone views it as a ethical issue.

Ironically, if she'd simply said nothing to the FBI, she would have walked.

This is why free markets work better, because there are multiple paymasters with varying points of view, not just one.

$6M is the equivalent of a few McDonald's franchises.

Was there actual damage done by transferring it to a legitimate research group, doing real research, that had to pass many levels of review (whatever its funding)? If not given to a Harvard research lab, might that $6 million not have done even worse damage elsewhere?

We are talking about a billionaire EVIL villain. The labs were absolutely compiling supplemental research or other dirty deeds.

Hands are 10x dirtier than public will ever know.

This is state intelligence not psycho playboy.

So it basically tries to muddy the waters between "If you give a large chunk of money to a researcher you get to influence what they research" and "You get to influence the output of that research."

Almost everyone agrees the latter is bad, but I think most people believe that you should be able to fund whatever research you want with your own money.

Can we take a moment, and just laugh at the fact that for some reason it's cheaper to buy yourself a visiting fellowship in the Harvard Psych department than it is to buy your kid a seat in the undergraduate psychology program?

Edit: I guess the most most eyebrow-raising revelation for me is that these positions are, in fact, for sale.

There's also examples like the development of the original birth control pill- which was largely funded by one wealthy woman. I doubt it could have happened in that time period without someone wealthy with independent interests being able to push development.

1. Einstein was funded by himself.

2. The Wright Bros were funded by themselves. They were motivated by the idea of getting rich selling airplanes. The government funded alternative, the Langley, flopped (literally) into the Potomac.

3. Whittle's jet engine was funded (in part) by a little old lady. Government refused to fund it.

4. The Reich refused to fund jet engines until Heinkel demonstrated a flying prototype. It was financed by Heinkel.

5. The transistor was invented by Bell Labs funded from AT&T's profits.

6. The first transatlantic cable was funded by wealthy investors looking to make money off of it.

7. Several explorers were funded by newspapers in exchange for exclusive story rights.

Should society spend more money on research? Yes

Should society ban individuals from spending money on research? No

As for always getting something in return, in economics you must always consider the alternative. The man had millions of dollars. For millions of dollars you can get "something" from all directions. Harvard's refusal to take his money would not have made him nine million dollars poorer. And as long as Harvard-donor-bragging-rights are just as available to anyone as a multi-million dollar beach house would be instead, I don't see why it matters.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&obj...

https://www.scribd.com/doc/267173868/Virginia-Roberts-Affida...

"19.In addition to constantly finding underage girls to satisfy their personal desires,Epstein and Maxwell also got girls for Epstein’s friends and acquaintances. Epstein specifically told me that the reason for him doing this was so that they would “owe him,” they would “be in his pocket,” and he would “have something on them.” I understood him to mean that when someone was in his pocket, they owed him favors. I also understood that Epstein thought he could get leniency if he was ever caught doing anything illegal, or more so that he could escape trouble altogether"

That's probably enough information to get you started.