Newly released investigative files about Jeffrey Epstein, totaling over three million pages and made public by the Department of Justice on January 30, detail his deliberate cultivation of relationships with scientists and news organizations – including Scientific American – as part of a broader effort to insert himself into influential circles.
The documents show Epstein sought connections not just through direct funding, but also through networking with prominent figures in science and media. New Scientist is mentioned in over 50 files, while National Geographic appears in nearly 200, though many references are simply forwarded articles or marketing materials. However, some exchanges suggest a more intimate relationship between Epstein and certain publications.
Epstein’s Influence Network:
Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell held positions on the board of the now-defunct science magazine Seed, referenced in 78 files. Forbes lists over 1,100 mentions, including one proposal for a feature on AI in Ethiopia tied to a lab Epstein funded. More concerningly, at least five former and one current member of Scientific American’s scientific board of advisers—Lisa Randall, George Church, Danny Hillis, Martin Nowak, Lawrence Krauss, and Nathan Wolfe—appear to have had documented contact with Epstein. None have been charged with related crimes.
In 2009, Nowak emailed Epstein, writing that he was joining the Scientific American board and that “almost everyone there is a friend of yours.” Harvard later sanctioned Nowak in 2021 for accepting Epstein funding, though those restrictions were lifted in 2023. Wolfe, another former board member, confirmed professional interactions with Epstein dating back to 2009, even after the financier’s 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. He maintains no funding was received and that Epstein had no editorial influence.
Randall, the sole current board member mentioned, reportedly flew on Epstein’s private jet in 2014 and attended a conference he funded in St. Thomas. She denies any impact on her scientific perspective.
Attempts at Editorial Control:
In 2014, Epstein sought access to Scientific American’s editorial meetings through Krauss, who provided the editor-in-chief’s contact. The financier expressed interest in how the magazine identified innovations for coverage, and DiChristina offered options, as she did for other prospective investors. DiChristina insists Epstein had no influence over coverage. One redacted message from 2014 proposed drafting an article for Scientific American co-authored with M.I.T.’s Seth Lloyd, with Epstein’s name in the title; the piece was never published. Lloyd, who later faced restrictions at M.I.T. for accepting Epstein donations, acknowledged the financier supported some “good science.”
The files also reveal disturbing discussions between Epstein and scientists about hypothetical research into sexually transmitted diseases to enhance female libido and race science. Scientific American reduced its network of bloggers in 2014, potentially cutting off a channel Epstein might have exploited. One email proposed setting up a “guest editor page” for Epstein, though no such page was created.
The Bigger Picture:
Epstein’s engagement with science and media was not solely about financial support. He actively sought prestige and influence, attempting to position himself as a patron of intellectual discourse. The extent to which he aimed to shape research outcomes remains unclear, but the files suggest a deliberate strategy to cultivate relationships with influential figures.
The Epstein case highlights how even seemingly benign interactions with a convicted criminal can raise ethical questions for institutions and individuals. The long-term implications of these relationships, beyond the immediate scandal, are still unfolding.
