A large portion of scientific research funding flows through private philanthropy, a channel that draws relatively little public scrutiny. Experts say that gap allowed Jeffrey Epstein to cultivate relationships with scientists and use donations to rehabilitate his image.
Computer scientist Scott Aaronson discovered his name among the Epstein files released earlier this year, despite never meeting Epstein. In 2010, while at MIT, Aaronson received an approach from a proxy about possible funding for a research project. He had forgotten the contact until the files surfaced, and after forwarding the message to his mother—who warned him to avoid “this slime machine”—he declined. Aaronson notes that at least one colleague did accept money and later became entangled in the fallout.
Epstein, who had no formal scientific training, positioned himself as a patron. He funded initiatives ranging from an exclusive 2006 physics conference to smaller projects, and courted researchers with praise and offers of support. Many of his donations were modest rather than the large, headline-grabbing gifts that typically trigger thorough institutional review.
By some estimates, philanthropy provides at least 20 percent of research funding at U.S. institutions. That private revenue stream faces limited government oversight: there is no universal system requiring detailed reporting of gifts to universities, and disclosure rules are narrow. Responsibility for vetting donors and weighing reputational risk falls largely to institutions and, in some cases, individual researchers.
Jeffrey Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School, says fundraising was a major part of his job and that, before the Epstein scandal, few leaders gave deep thought to the long-term reputational consequences of accepting particular donations. Many universities do publish donor lists and maintain gift policies, and most have some process for reputational review. Roger Ali of the Association of Fundraising Professionals stresses that institutions can and do use those policies to accept gifts ethically and guard against undue influence.
Critics argue, however, that scrutiny often concentrates on the largest donors. Because Epstein’s giving frequently consisted of smaller amounts, he sometimes avoided the level of review reserved for major benefactors. That opacity, scholars warn, enables wealthy individuals to influence institutions and public perception without robust public accountability.
Stanford professor Rob Reich calls philanthropy “a significant form of power” that lacks transparency and therefore the scrutiny it merits. He and others point to other examples, such as donations from the Sackler family to universities and cultural institutions amid revelations about their company’s role in the opioid crisis, to show how giving can obscure harmful origins.
Reich argues for stronger disclosures: private universities should publicly report who gives money, the amounts, and any donor restrictions or intended use. That kind of transparency, he says, would enable informed public debate and help establish clearer norms for accepting or rejecting gifts. While some universities increased disclosure and attention after Epstein’s crimes came to light, Roger Ali notes the sector has not seen major structural change—mostly greater awareness rather than systemic reform.
Reich acknowledges that not all donations from controversial individuals are automatically untouchable and that there may be cases where accepting a gift is defensible. But he insists those deliberations should be public so the community can judge whether a gift aligns with an institution’s values and whether the benefits outweigh reputational costs.
Proponents of greater openness argue that clearer, routine reporting of donors, amounts, and conditions would reduce opportunities for problematic figures to use philanthropy to launder reputations, and would help universities weigh the true costs and benefits of private support. The Epstein revelations, they say, highlight the need for more transparent, accountable practices in scientific philanthropy.