The recent release of files by the U.S. Department of Justice on Jeffrey Epstein has shed light on the connections between the disgraced financier and various prominent individuals, including scientists. Among the thousands of images and videos in the files, one clip stood out – a four-second video showing psychologist and writer Steven Pinker of Harvard University riding on Epstein’s private plane. Pinker, who was on his way to a TED Talk, later revealed that he immediately disliked Epstein, whom he perceived as a dilettante and a smartass.
Epstein, who died in federal prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, had a penchant for engaging with scientists. The release of more records from a reported stash of 5.2 million files, now overdue, is expected to raise questions about the relationships between Epstein and the scientific community. Previous releases of e-mails and investigation records have already highlighted the involvement of several prominent scholars with Epstein, prompting inquiries at institutions like MIT and Harvard.
One of the key reasons for scientists’ interest in Epstein was his financial patronage. Wealthy individuals have historically funded scientific research, and Epstein was no exception. Despite his controversial reputation, Epstein made substantial donations to institutions like Harvard and MIT, supporting various research initiatives. These donations often bypassed regular channels, raising eyebrows and prompting investigations into the circumstances surrounding them.
Epstein’s connections to scientists were not limited to financial transactions. He cultivated relationships with influential individuals through events organized by the Edge Foundation, a non-profit organization that he funded. Scientists like Pinker unwittingly found themselves intertwined with Epstein’s legal defense, as was the case with Pinker’s 2007 opinion on a prostitution law. The revelation of these associations has led to introspection and regret among those who interacted with Epstein.
In addition to financial support, Epstein sought to build a network of influential personalities, leveraging their connections for his own benefit. His involvement with scientists and other prominent figures was a part of a larger strategy to create an aura of wealth and influence, which he used to attract investors and expand his social circle. The true extent of Epstein’s motives and actions in the realm of science may never be fully understood, but the fallout from his associations continues to reverberate within academic and research communities. Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier who was known for his connections to powerful people, was also a “people collector” who traded information and favors, according to biographer Barry Levine. In a 2025 BBC report, it was revealed that Epstein had cultivated relationships with various influential groups, including scientists. This was during a time when scientists were experiencing a surge in popularity, becoming celebrities in their own right.
Declan Fahy, an associate professor of science communication, noted that scientists were at a cultural high-water mark during that period. They wrote best-selling books, appeared in prestigious magazines like Vanity Fair and Vogue, and gave viral TED Talks that garnered widespread attention. As a result, they became part of the power elite, making it logical for Epstein to seek their company.
Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s former girlfriend, revealed in a 2025 interview with the Department of Justice that Epstein had a particular interest in brain science. Maxwell, who was convicted of sex trafficking in 2021, stated that Epstein was fascinated by the work being done at the Santa Fe Institute, a hub for high-profile scientists. Epstein even made a donation of $25,000 to the institute in 2010 and regularly hosted dinners for scientists at his home.
One of Epstein’s key connections to the scientific community was through literary agent John Brockman, who had a knack for bringing scientists into Epstein’s circle. Evgeny Morozov, a writer, detailed Brockman’s efforts to connect him with Epstein and his exclusive gatherings, which often included TED Talk speakers. The Edge Foundation, a prominent organization in science writing, was also linked to Epstein, who was a major funder, contributing $638,000 from 2001 to 2015.
However, Epstein’s interest in science had darker undertones. He was drawn to genetic determinism, an idea rooted in eugenics, which posits that genetics play a significant role in determining human behavior. Epstein reportedly had ambitions of starting a “baby ranch” to raise children conceived through his genetic selection. Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science, criticized Epstein’s support for research on the genetic basis of human behavior, noting that funders often influence the work done by scientists.
Epstein’s scientific ambitions were further revealed in a 2005 proposal to become a Visiting Fellow at Harvard, where he expressed a desire to study the reasons behind group behavior. He referred to social prosthetic systems, suggesting that other people could act as extensions of ourselves, augmenting our cognitive abilities and regulating our emotions.
The revelations about Epstein’s connections to the scientific community raise questions about the influence of money in science. Pharmaceutical industry-funded research has been known to yield favorable results, and social media companies like Facebook and Twitter have restricted researchers from studying their data, impacting public health. At the National Institutes of Health, political appointees have been involved in approving research allocations, altering the traditional standards for funding.
In a changing landscape where science is increasingly politicized, the involvement of scientists in Epstein’s circle underscores the complexities of their relationships with wealth and power. The blurred lines between science and influence raise concerns about the integrity of research and the impact of external interests on scientific progress. As the scientific community grapples with these challenges, it is essential to maintain transparency and uphold ethical standards in scientific endeavors. Steven Pinker, a prominent psychologist and author, recently made a thought-provoking statement about how media coverage can influence public perception. Pinker noted that when journalists focus on writing about individuals in photographs, they inadvertently shift attention away from important issues, such as President Trump’s entanglements.
In today’s fast-paced media landscape, the way stories are presented can have a significant impact on what the audience pays attention to. Pinker’s observation highlights the power of media framing and how it can shape public discourse.
When journalists choose to write about the people in a photo rather than the context or implications of the situation, they are missing an opportunity to shed light on important issues. In the case of President Trump’s entanglements, this lack of focus can lead to a lack of accountability and transparency.
Pinker’s statement serves as a reminder to journalists and media outlets to consider the broader implications of their reporting. By prioritizing substance over sensationalism, journalists can help ensure that important issues are not overlooked or overshadowed.
In a world where information is constantly being consumed and shared, it is more important than ever for journalists to use their platform responsibly. By staying focused on the facts and providing context for their stories, journalists can help shape a more informed and engaged public.
As Pinker’s statement suggests, the way stories are framed and presented can have a significant impact on the public’s understanding of complex issues. By keeping the focus on important topics, such as President Trump’s entanglements, journalists can help hold those in power accountable and foster a more informed society.
