A MARTÍNEZ, HOST:
The most recent release of files about Jeffrey Epstein reveal more about the people he pulled into his orbit, including scientists. The files show Epstein cultivated relationships with a number of prominent researchers, often with offers of funding. NPR's Katia Riddle reports on why so much of that money got past universities' ethical firewalls.
KATIA RIDDLE, BYLINE: When the Epstein files were released earlier this year, Scott Aaronson was surprised to find his own name in them.
SCOTT AARONSON: This was something that I'd completely forgotten about - right? - until I, like, saw that, oh, like, I'm in the Epstein files like 26 times. Why am I there?
RIDDLE: Aaronson is a computer scientist. In 2010, he was working at MIT. He never met or associated with Jeffrey Epstein, but apparently Epstein tried to meet him. Emails show that one of Epstein's proxies reached out to him about potentially funding a research project. Aaronson had never heard of Jeffrey Epstein. He forwarded the query to a person he knew to be a good judge of character, his mom.
AARONSON: And then my mom sent an email that said, be careful of getting sucked into this slime machine.
RIDDLE: He turned Epstein's offer down. Aaronson has at least one colleague who did get caught up with him. That's because reputational risk is just not necessarily the first thing that people think about when they receive interest in funding their work, says Jeffrey Flier.
JEFFREY FLIER: Before the Epstein affair, almost nobody would be thinking about that.
RIDDLE: Flier was dean of Harvard Medical School 2007 to 2016. He also did not associate with Epstein. But fundraising was a significant part of his job. He says he's not surprised that some scientists engaged with a potential donor who praised their work and dangled money.
FLIER: The main reaction they're going to have, understandably, given human nature and everything else is, wow, that's amazing. That would be great. I love that.
RIDDLE: Scientists are often under pressure to secure funding for their own research, a mix of federal grants and private funding. Epstein did give millions of dollars to scientists, universities and scientific organizations over many years. These donations were frequently in relatively small amounts. Big universities, says Flier, often save their scrutiny for the biggest donors that present the most risk.
FLIER: Various people in the legal offices and at the highest levels of governance, you know, will say, OK, what do we know about this person? Is there any reason we wouldn't want to have our school named for this person?
RIDDLE: Private philanthropy accounts for billions of dollars in science funding every year. Some analyses estimate it provides at least 10% to 20% of research funding at universities. After Epstein's crimes came to light, some universities strengthened policies for investigating donors. But there's no universal reporting system for these gifts. Legal requirements around disclosures are limited.
ROB REICH: One of the really massive failings with philanthropy is that because it has so little transparency, it doesn't generate the scrutiny that it deserves as a significant form of power in a society.
RIDDLE: Rob Reich, a professor at Stanford University, studies the impact of philanthropy. He says it's pretty common for people to use this system to rehabilitate their reputation.
REICH: All the time. All the time. I mean, Epstein just seems egregious in part because there's no political or social constituency for pedophiles, so no one's about to stick up for him.
RIDDLE: Reich points to the Sackler family, the former owners of Purdue Pharma, whose marketing of the opioid painkiller OxyContin helped fuel the opioid crisis. The family donated heavily to universities and scientific institutions. Reich says one thing that would help mitigate the use of the system to obfuscate bad behavior - requiring private universities to disclose exactly who is giving money and how much.
REICH: There should be public transparency about the person or the foundation, the amount and what the donor restrictions or intent were.
RIDDLE: Reich acknowledges there's no form of, quote, "pure money." He says there could be a circumstance in which a donor committed a crime, served time and offered a donation as a kind of atonement.
REICH: Universities should shoulder the responsibility of making transparent their own donor policies so that a richer public discussion can happen about this, and we can find our way to, you know, some reasonable set of norms.
RIDDLE: After all, he says, this kind of philanthropy is not just a donation to the institution. It's a gift to the public in the name of science.
Katia Riddle, NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
