Jeffrey Epstein’s Harvard connections show how money can distort research(scientificamerican.com)
scientificamerican.com
Jeffrey Epstein’s Harvard connections show how money can distort research
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/jeffrey-epsteins-harvard-connections-show-how-money-can-distort-research/
211 comments
Agree. People's response to all this is so strange. It seems clear to me that this guy was legitimately interested in supporting science, and was a sexual predator. For some reason people really can't handle the idea of him being both things simultaneously. The world is actually just complicated sometimes.
There is a long history of great scientific advancements being made by otherwise unsavory people. Werner Von Braun, Ronald Fisher, Francis Galton, just off the top of my head. By all accounts these people legitimately loved science and reason and also held otherwise abhorrent views, and in some cases took abhorrent actions. This is just an ambiguity we have to live with.
There is a long history of great scientific advancements being made by otherwise unsavory people. Werner Von Braun, Ronald Fisher, Francis Galton, just off the top of my head. By all accounts these people legitimately loved science and reason and also held otherwise abhorrent views, and in some cases took abhorrent actions. This is just an ambiguity we have to live with.
In 2007, with the support of luminaries like Steven Pinker and Alan Dershowitz, Epstein managed to finagle from Alex Acosta a non-prosecution agreement for human trafficking that ultimately resulted in a country club sentence that allowed him, during his short custodial sentence, to work from his own private office for 12 hours every day.
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.
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.
All of which are bad things, but are examples of how money can corrupt people's ethics not how the money corrupted research. Corrupting research in Epstein's case would be if Harvard started publishing studies showing pedophilia was just a lifestyle choice and shouldn't be criminalized.
There were two purposes to the funding: to drive research, and to build Epstein's influence. There are two questions: which of those was the primary purpose? And, even if you reach the conclusion that building Epstein's influence was the secondary purpose, does that matter?
It matters about the title referring to distorting research - obviously the money distorted people, not the research, the research that was done with Epstein's money did not become any less valuable, some of the people who drove that research became less ethical where interactions that were not scientific research in nature were concerned.
The research has some value, and was paid for at some cost, and if the cost outstrips the value, that is relevant. I think it's easy to conclude that it did.
>In 2007, with the support of luminaries like Steven Pinker and Alan Dershowitz, Epstein managed to finagle from Alex Acosta a non-prosecution agreement
He didn't finagle shit, his CIA handler finagled it for him. And that person will never face any consequences.
He didn't finagle shit, his CIA handler finagled it for him. And that person will never face any consequences.
I agree that one may reasonably ask that. But there are much easier ways to acquire power and influence if you are extremely wealthy.
The only reasonable conclusion you can draw about the man is that he was both legitimately interested in furthering science and interested in acquiring personal power. That doesn't make anything he did any better, and we shouldn't say things like "well, he did all this sexual abuse, but he also funded science". I'm not advocating that.
But I also think it's overly reductionist and cynical to say that he was funding science for the sole purpose of insulating himself from legal prosecution for abusing women. It's just a ridiculously inefficient way to do that, if that's your only goal.
My broader point is that I think we need to be better about handling moral, not ambiguity, but...ambivalence? Epstein is not a morally ambiguous character, but he did do more than one thing in his life. Some of those things were good, some of those things were bad. The bad things unequivocally outweigh the good things, but it doesn't mean we have to erase them, or find some way rube-goldbergian way to re-evaluate them as actually sinister.
Which is also not to say that we shouldn't think carefully about the kind of power/legitimacy conferred by Epstein's activities. I think that's a legitimate and important discussion. But i'd find the inability to handle multi-dimensionality in some of these discussions strange.
The only reasonable conclusion you can draw about the man is that he was both legitimately interested in furthering science and interested in acquiring personal power. That doesn't make anything he did any better, and we shouldn't say things like "well, he did all this sexual abuse, but he also funded science". I'm not advocating that.
But I also think it's overly reductionist and cynical to say that he was funding science for the sole purpose of insulating himself from legal prosecution for abusing women. It's just a ridiculously inefficient way to do that, if that's your only goal.
My broader point is that I think we need to be better about handling moral, not ambiguity, but...ambivalence? Epstein is not a morally ambiguous character, but he did do more than one thing in his life. Some of those things were good, some of those things were bad. The bad things unequivocally outweigh the good things, but it doesn't mean we have to erase them, or find some way rube-goldbergian way to re-evaluate them as actually sinister.
Which is also not to say that we shouldn't think carefully about the kind of power/legitimacy conferred by Epstein's activities. I think that's a legitimate and important discussion. But i'd find the inability to handle multi-dimensionality in some of these discussions strange.
No-one is arguing that humans can't be complicated enough to have separate and complex facets to their lives.
We're arguing that, in this case, the facets weren't actually separate.
Here is a quote from a New York Magazine writer, quoting Epstein when he (the writer) asked to interview him about his conviction for molesting a 14 year-old:
> "Have you managed to talk to many of my friends?" Epstein had been supplying me the phone numbers of important scientists and financiers and media figures. "Do you understand what an extraordinary group of people they are, what they have accomplished in their fields?"
This is an attempt to intertwine the two aspects of his life that you claim were disconnected. It was not the only similar attempt.
http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/
We're arguing that, in this case, the facets weren't actually separate.
Here is a quote from a New York Magazine writer, quoting Epstein when he (the writer) asked to interview him about his conviction for molesting a 14 year-old:
> "Have you managed to talk to many of my friends?" Epstein had been supplying me the phone numbers of important scientists and financiers and media figures. "Do you understand what an extraordinary group of people they are, what they have accomplished in their fields?"
This is an attempt to intertwine the two aspects of his life that you claim were disconnected. It was not the only similar attempt.
http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/
I'm not saying they were completely disconnected. What i'm saying is that he very clearly had a legitimate interest/passion for science. He could have acquired power and influence in much more efficient ways than funding the MIT media lab, but he chose the things he did because he liked them.
I think people here don't want to believe he legitimately liked science because they think of that as a "good" trait, and they don't want a "bad" person to have any "good" traits. And I think that way of viewing the world ends up doing more harm than good.
I think people here don't want to believe he legitimately liked science because they think of that as a "good" trait, and they don't want a "bad" person to have any "good" traits. And I think that way of viewing the world ends up doing more harm than good.
It's not that clear. The sense I picked up from reading accounts of people who've met him in scientific contexts is that he would ask nonsensical questions, exhibiting an unwillingness to put in the effort to understand the basics of the fields he sponsored. It doesn't sound very passionate to me.
For example, from an article:
> The Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker said he considered Epstein as an "intellectual impostor”.
For example, from an article:
> The Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker said he considered Epstein as an "intellectual impostor”.
That seems to fit even better, albeit it in a different way.
Rather than funding science to make a good contribution out of personal interest (and understanding), he could have been motivated out of a feeling of admiration, or intellectual inadequacy. Monetary funding would then appear to place him as a peer among these scientists, which would be a bit of an ego boost either way.
This would make claims about his "extraordinary group" of friends make a lot of sense. He might have associated with those people thinking that it made him feel and appear to be an interesting, intelligent, overall better person. Seems like exactly what an "intellectual imposter" would do, more than someone trying to build a personal shield.
Besides, we all know scientists have no political influence worth harnessing.
This would make claims about his "extraordinary group" of friends make a lot of sense. He might have associated with those people thinking that it made him feel and appear to be an interesting, intelligent, overall better person. Seems like exactly what an "intellectual imposter" would do, more than someone trying to build a personal shield.
Besides, we all know scientists have no political influence worth harnessing.
Or he knew that donating to influential science organizations would buy him good will, put him in touch with other rich donors, be good for media coverage and get him a list of people who might vouch for him when called by a journalist because they've received funding from him.
> This would make claims about his "extraordinary group" of friends make a lot of sense.
I don't know, it sounds like a slightly better worded version of "I know great people, they're the best people really, and I am one of them". They're extraordinary and they are his friends => wow, that must be quite the great guy, or he wouldn't have those kinds of friends.
Scientists might not directly have political influence, but especially the very successful ones are well-connected and have friends in the media. If you have lots of money to spend and you want to buy good will, wouldn't you just spread it? If a journalist ever thinks about you and talks about you at a private party, what better could happen than a science guy saying "oh I know him, he funded our important research" and an author saying "oh, yeah, that guy, he donated money to some literary program" and a finance guy saying "wow, yeah, he's very successful".
I find that a much simpler explanation that fits well into the picture.
> This would make claims about his "extraordinary group" of friends make a lot of sense.
I don't know, it sounds like a slightly better worded version of "I know great people, they're the best people really, and I am one of them". They're extraordinary and they are his friends => wow, that must be quite the great guy, or he wouldn't have those kinds of friends.
Scientists might not directly have political influence, but especially the very successful ones are well-connected and have friends in the media. If you have lots of money to spend and you want to buy good will, wouldn't you just spread it? If a journalist ever thinks about you and talks about you at a private party, what better could happen than a science guy saying "oh I know him, he funded our important research" and an author saying "oh, yeah, that guy, he donated money to some literary program" and a finance guy saying "wow, yeah, he's very successful".
I find that a much simpler explanation that fits well into the picture.
> wow, that must be quite the great guy, or he wouldn't have those kinds of friends.
All I was really saying was that maybe he believed this himself. Like his mum paid for an expensive party and invited the cool kids and they were mostly polite and now he thinks they like him and he’s part of the group. Key difference being belief in his own delusion, before bragging to others about being one of the cool kids.
All I was really saying was that maybe he believed this himself. Like his mum paid for an expensive party and invited the cool kids and they were mostly polite and now he thinks they like him and he’s part of the group. Key difference being belief in his own delusion, before bragging to others about being one of the cool kids.
Even if he had a legitimate interest in science, who cares? There are two huge problems with Harvard allowing him to continue like that.
1. He exploited his connections to obtain a very lax sentence which allowed him to continue to rape children.
2. It damages the integrity of the scientific research as laid out in the article.
I have a bigger issue with the first than with the second, but I don't see how the question of whether he also had a legitimate interest in science is relevant to either.
1. He exploited his connections to obtain a very lax sentence which allowed him to continue to rape children.
2. It damages the integrity of the scientific research as laid out in the article.
I have a bigger issue with the first than with the second, but I don't see how the question of whether he also had a legitimate interest in science is relevant to either.
> 2. It damages the integrity of the scientific research as laid out in the article.
A major point in this thread is that that makes no sense. The integrity of the scientific research here is fine. Is the suggestion here that there is a paedophile agenda to promote science and technology? Do we expect to be able to identify paedophiles because of their unusual dedication to the advancement of human knowledge?
The answer is a pretty solid no to both of those questions. There is no link between paedophilia and science.
> 1. He exploited his connections to obtain a very lax sentence which allowed him to continue to rape children.
Harvard isn't a courthouse. It is probably illegal in some way for them to revise court decisions. If the court gives a light sentence Harvard has to respect that. This point isn't related to Harvard.
A major point in this thread is that that makes no sense. The integrity of the scientific research here is fine. Is the suggestion here that there is a paedophile agenda to promote science and technology? Do we expect to be able to identify paedophiles because of their unusual dedication to the advancement of human knowledge?
The answer is a pretty solid no to both of those questions. There is no link between paedophilia and science.
> 1. He exploited his connections to obtain a very lax sentence which allowed him to continue to rape children.
Harvard isn't a courthouse. It is probably illegal in some way for them to revise court decisions. If the court gives a light sentence Harvard has to respect that. This point isn't related to Harvard.
We might disagree on those two points (I am abivalent about the research integrity one, anyway) but I hope you can agree with me that whether Epstein has a legitimate interest in science is completely immaterial to both of them. That's what my comment was about.
[deleted]
> But there are much easier ways to acquire power and influence if you are extremely wealthy.
Please elaborate, and include details of how those ways don't involve currying favor (using money and other things) with highly influential people and the institutions they are associated with.
It's not so easy to bribe a public prosecutor, which is why the extremely wealthy in need of a reputation bailout purchase it from those who are currently publicly reputable by virtue of the institution they are associated with (i.e MIT or Harvard).
The dimensions of people's lives are not as independent as you suggest which is why we have the concept of the conflict of interest.
Please elaborate, and include details of how those ways don't involve currying favor (using money and other things) with highly influential people and the institutions they are associated with.
It's not so easy to bribe a public prosecutor, which is why the extremely wealthy in need of a reputation bailout purchase it from those who are currently publicly reputable by virtue of the institution they are associated with (i.e MIT or Harvard).
The dimensions of people's lives are not as independent as you suggest which is why we have the concept of the conflict of interest.
> Please elaborate, and include details of how those ways don't involve currying favor (using money and other things) with highly influential people and the institutions they are associated with.
Invest in local politicians by making dinners, hosting parties, etc..and slowly work your way up the stack. It's true that Epstein did some of this, but from a pure power perspective, he would have gotten better returns by allocating his science money/time towards politicians directly.
> The dimensions of people's lives are not as independent as you suggest which is why we have the concept of the conflict of interest.
To be clear, i'm not suggesting that acquiring power/insulation was not one of the purposes of his science funding. What I am saying is that I don't think it was his sole motivation, and that describing it that way seems to me like an over-simplification designed to other him, so that we can all feel like he's completely unlike us. People on HN like science and technology, which means he shares something in common with us, and I think that makes people uncomfortable, so they want to deny it.
Invest in local politicians by making dinners, hosting parties, etc..and slowly work your way up the stack. It's true that Epstein did some of this, but from a pure power perspective, he would have gotten better returns by allocating his science money/time towards politicians directly.
> The dimensions of people's lives are not as independent as you suggest which is why we have the concept of the conflict of interest.
To be clear, i'm not suggesting that acquiring power/insulation was not one of the purposes of his science funding. What I am saying is that I don't think it was his sole motivation, and that describing it that way seems to me like an over-simplification designed to other him, so that we can all feel like he's completely unlike us. People on HN like science and technology, which means he shares something in common with us, and I think that makes people uncomfortable, so they want to deny it.
There's no evidence he had even a basic understanding of science, never mind a genuine interest in it.
There's no reason to believe his "interest in science" went any deeper than creating social leverage - at best.
Cultivating scientists, philosophers, and other intellectually prominent people is a far less risky and far more directly rewarding strategy than cultivating politicians - although in fact he did plenty of that too.
But politicians are usually considered sleazy, and someone who is courting them is clearly playing a political game and likely to be sleazy themselves.
Courting scientists and academics is much cleaner and provides exactly the kind of cover you're attempting to justify.
And of course no one should have a problem with othering Epstein. Considering his record, he's about as other as it's possible to be.
There's no reason to believe his "interest in science" went any deeper than creating social leverage - at best.
Cultivating scientists, philosophers, and other intellectually prominent people is a far less risky and far more directly rewarding strategy than cultivating politicians - although in fact he did plenty of that too.
But politicians are usually considered sleazy, and someone who is courting them is clearly playing a political game and likely to be sleazy themselves.
Courting scientists and academics is much cleaner and provides exactly the kind of cover you're attempting to justify.
And of course no one should have a problem with othering Epstein. Considering his record, he's about as other as it's possible to be.
> Invest in local politicians by making dinners, hosting parties, etc..and slowly work your way up the stack.
No amount of dinner parties is going to get people with reputation to lend it to you to cover the kind of horrifying stuff Epstein did. That sort of reputation cover costs money, and lots of it.
No amount of dinner parties is going to get people with reputation to lend it to you to cover the kind of horrifying stuff Epstein did. That sort of reputation cover costs money, and lots of it.
> It's true that Epstein did some of this, but from a pure power perspective, he would have gotten better returns by allocating his science money/time towards politicians directly.
That carries the risk of ending up with a felony campaign finance violation like Dinesh D'Souza's. Epstein was evil, not stupid.
That carries the risk of ending up with a felony campaign finance violation like Dinesh D'Souza's. Epstein was evil, not stupid.
He was insulating himself from criminal charges for abusing children. He raped children. He had children trafficked so that he could rape them, and then hand them off to his influential friends to rape again.
Werner Von Braun was an actual nazi. He was also a great scientist. The world is just complicated sometimes.
The idea that all his science funding was an elaborate ruse to insulate himself from prosecution is just not a very well grounded view. His chosen method of insulation was terribly inefficient with respect to time and money. He would have gotten a much better ROI by investing in politicians directly, the fact that he chose to focus more on science than politics makes it pretty clear that he had a genuine interest/passion for it.
I don't see why he can't like science for its own sake and be a child abuser. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
The idea that all his science funding was an elaborate ruse to insulate himself from prosecution is just not a very well grounded view. His chosen method of insulation was terribly inefficient with respect to time and money. He would have gotten a much better ROI by investing in politicians directly, the fact that he chose to focus more on science than politics makes it pretty clear that he had a genuine interest/passion for it.
I don't see why he can't like science for its own sake and be a child abuser. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
Epstein is not a great scientist. In fact, he's not a scientist at all.
That wasn't my point. My point was that people can simultaneously do evil things and like science.
Have you considered the option that Epstein didn't like science as such but liked the influence and air of respectability that hanging out with scientists and being seen as a supporter gave him? It could easily be a form of whitewashing of his reputation that he would not be able to do otherwise. Nothing spells 'good guy' more clearly than large donations to science and education.
[deleted]
> Werner Von Braun was an actual nazi. He was also a great scientist.
Some recent research suggests he might not have been that great a scientist after all. The story goes that he was an impostor who got to his position mostly due to his influential father and whose main skill was managing others who did the actual work.
Here's a bachelor's thesis from 2018 and an interview with the author - both in German, unfortunately:
https://www.christopherlauer.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/C...
https://wrint.de/2019/01/15/wr903-wernher-von-braun/
Some recent research suggests he might not have been that great a scientist after all. The story goes that he was an impostor who got to his position mostly due to his influential father and whose main skill was managing others who did the actual work.
Here's a bachelor's thesis from 2018 and an interview with the author - both in German, unfortunately:
https://www.christopherlauer.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/C...
https://wrint.de/2019/01/15/wr903-wernher-von-braun/
What are you even arguing???
Yes, everyone knows that.
It was horrible.
But that doesn't tell us whether he had one motivation or two motivations in donating the way he did.
I could understand if you were saying "we should focus on his horrific crimes, and not care about what his motivation was in donating". But that can't be it, because you've also been posting in-depth about what his motivation was in donating.
So why are you making this post? I really hope it's not that you're trying to make it so awkward to respond that you 'win' the argument. But I can't think of any other non-hypocritical motivation.
Yes, everyone knows that.
It was horrible.
But that doesn't tell us whether he had one motivation or two motivations in donating the way he did.
I could understand if you were saying "we should focus on his horrific crimes, and not care about what his motivation was in donating". But that can't be it, because you've also been posting in-depth about what his motivation was in donating.
So why are you making this post? I really hope it's not that you're trying to make it so awkward to respond that you 'win' the argument. But I can't think of any other non-hypocritical motivation.
That "Epstein abused women" was not an accurate description of his behavior. I think I was plenty clear.
Oh, you're complaining about one badly-chosen word. Women instead of girls.
Well I look dumb. Sorry.
But do you have any response to the other 99% of that post?
> I think I was plenty clear.
Normally people, especially those already in the reply chain, reply to the main argument of posts, so I don't think it was sufficiently clear. I would suggest quoting the part you're responding to if it's that small a section.
Well I look dumb. Sorry.
But do you have any response to the other 99% of that post?
> I think I was plenty clear.
Normally people, especially those already in the reply chain, reply to the main argument of posts, so I don't think it was sufficiently clear. I would suggest quoting the part you're responding to if it's that small a section.
For what its worth, it was totally lost on me too. I thought it was a non-sequitur rant ignoring the entirety of the post
hlfy_hn(1)
Pinker didn’t do anything for Epstein in 2007. That’s a pretty horrible mischaracterization.
Source? I have one.
> *"Epstein found aid from star psychologist Steven Pinker in the form of a 2007 legal document"
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/07/17/steven-pinker...
> *"Epstein found aid from star psychologist Steven Pinker in the form of a 2007 legal document"
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/07/17/steven-pinker...
I think parent was referring to this
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/07/17/steven-pinker...
(disclaimer: I know nothing about this and have no personal opinion on the matter)
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/07/17/steven-pinker...
(disclaimer: I know nothing about this and have no personal opinion on the matter)
I’m familiar with what he is referring to. It’s the least charitable interpretation, and one that disregards Pinker’s explanation and greatly overstates his role. Something you’d only sneak in a comment if you’re eager to throw shade at someone you don’t know but who you constructed an oppressor narrative for anyway.
He absolutely assisted in his defense, if you believe his story, at the behest of Dershowitz.
From what I gather from the article linked above, he privately gave his expert opinion as a linguist regarding a passage of legal text. To make the claim that he "absolutely assisted", you'd have to presume it wasn't something he'd do for anyone else, that he expected it to be used (apparently he claimed otherwise?), and that it actually helped, despite seeming completely off-the-wall. Did I miss anything?
And even so, any one of us can hire an expert witness to make a statement like that. Especially big-shot professors. They aren't cheap I bet, but they surely don't cost 6 million bucks per line.
And even so, any one of us can hire an expert witness to make a statement like that. Especially big-shot professors. They aren't cheap I bet, but they surely don't cost 6 million bucks per line.
to claim he absolutely assisted, you actually just need to presume that he did something that helped. You can argue with those other points to try to argue about whether or to what extent it was a bad thing to do, but those arguments, even if valid, do not change the bare fact that he did in fact assist to some extent in Epstein's legal defense as a favour to his friend who was representing Epstein.
Though Pinker himself has said he regrets having provided that aid, so I don't think he himself fully agrees with you if you want to argue against it being something he should not have done.
Though Pinker himself has said he regrets having provided that aid, so I don't think he himself fully agrees with you if you want to argue against it being something he should not have done.
It doesn't seem clear to me at all that this guy was JUST interested in supporting science.
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.
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.
There is no doubt that 'any' patron to science expect to see certain results, whether that someone or some organization's expectations matches ours is another matter. The difference should be drawn with fabricating results, not donation to science
xwdv(2)
> Epstein's intrest in eugenics is pretty well documented.
i don't think of myself as much of an epstein apologist, but as far as i can tell this traces back to him talking about wanting to have a bunch of children, which seems like a bit of a stretch to me
i don't think of myself as much of an epstein apologist, but as far as i can tell this traces back to him talking about wanting to have a bunch of children, which seems like a bit of a stretch to me
I think the comment your referring to was a little less innocent than him wanting to just have a few kids. I did a fair bit of reading on this guy a while back and I seem to recall there being quite a bit of public documents and testimony that pointed out Epsteins weird interest in eugenetics.
could you point me to them?
People's response to all this is so strange.
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.
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.
One could argue that this effect is negligible compared to the other influences at hand. The most significant of which is the profit motive. If you worry about a few rick patrons directing science, imagine what the r&d budget of every corporation on earth is doing.
One could argue that this effect is negligible compared to the other influences at hand
And "one" would be kind of engaging in "what-about-ism".
You certainly have some corporations indeed attempting to twist results in areas like climate science or tobacco smoke. The main limit here is that companies spend based on semi-objective cost benefits so most companies want to look better hire public relations agencies rather than paying for science but see notable except above.
Sure, I don't which different kinds of science distortion worst but it's certainly remarkable the different arguments which phenomena like Epstein's efforts aren't really a problem.
And "one" would be kind of engaging in "what-about-ism".
You certainly have some corporations indeed attempting to twist results in areas like climate science or tobacco smoke. The main limit here is that companies spend based on semi-objective cost benefits so most companies want to look better hire public relations agencies rather than paying for science but see notable except above.
Sure, I don't which different kinds of science distortion worst but it's certainly remarkable the different arguments which phenomena like Epstein's efforts aren't really a problem.
There is what-about-ism and there is contextualization.
I think the philanthropic distortion of science is such a small negative effect it is not worth considering at all.
I think the philanthropic distortion of science is such a small negative effect it is not worth considering at all.
Is there any reason to believe the spontaneous consensus that arises among the kind of people involved in government institutions can't also be biased, in an unsavory way, towards certain goals that benefit them as a class?
> It seems clear to me that this guy was legitimately interested in supporting science, and was a sexual predator.
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.
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.
His views on eugenics were particularly creepy, even from an academic perspective.
Epstein? You could easily be referring to the other three I mentioned too, i'm legitimately unsure.
Yes, Epstein. There's a few trustworthy articles out there which share a quote that he 'hoped to seed the human race with his DNA'. He had allegedly confided with quite a few people about it.
It's creepy by modern western norms but it's been a fairly basic drive in rich and powerful men for a long time. Look at the percentage of men who share Y chromosomes from Genghis Khan, or the sultans who kept large harems.
I don't understand why that's relevant. You should know that your comment reads as an excuse or an acceptance for the deeply creepy and awful things that Epstein said and did, not sure if you meant it that way so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Which awful thing did I even remotely justify? My comment was in reference to the comment I replied to, which was:
>'hoped to seed the human race with his DNA
I then gave examples of powerful men attempting to seed the human race with their DNA. I make zero justification of exploiting/grooming underage girls, that's an entirely seperate issue.
>'hoped to seed the human race with his DNA
I then gave examples of powerful men attempting to seed the human race with their DNA. I make zero justification of exploiting/grooming underage girls, that's an entirely seperate issue.
[deleted]
Doesn't seem like he had kids, or at least publicly.
Epstein wanted an island of pregnant women raising his babies.
And yet, for someone who certainly had the resources, Epstein seems to have had... no children at all? (Or has he simply successfully hidden his parentage?)
Did he own any fertility clinics?..
Larry Hillblom (the H in DHL) did just exactly that.
Are you referring to Bill Gates?
This is very true, in politics specially things are not black or white, and in this case, common sense will just label him as a bad guy, despite the fact that he may have positive impact in science contributions. One specific situation that raises questions was his donation to Long Beach PD, for protection, while they also turn one eye blind for his behavior
Many invest in education to get influence and nudge research in a certain direction.
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.
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.
People try to classify everything around them in binary. As its easy to just label people.
But the fact they fail to understand is that no one is just "good" or "bad". You have to evaluate each of the actions and weigh it. This is tough and most don't do it.
No one is black or white, they are just shades of grey.
No one is black or white, they are just shades of grey.
"To us, Hitler was still only a pompous fool with a Charlie Chaplin moustache" - Wernher von Braun.
I agree that people are many things and that monsters can also do good things. People are complex. But...
> 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...
> 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...
> We do not have to accept that people who have violated our basic ideas about humanity should be allowed to do science.
Science is permissionless. The ethical restrictions of the research are good enough to monitor and remain vigilant about.
The idea of whitelisting transactions is misguided.
Science is permissionless. The ethical restrictions of the research are good enough to monitor and remain vigilant about.
The idea of whitelisting transactions is misguided.
Science is permissionless, yes, but science doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Science is made up of scientists, journals, universities, institutes, etc, which are all a larger part of our society. We have to apply our same moral compass and ethical responsibility to them that we would anywhere else.
Let's try a relatable thought exercise: there are a lot of misogynists in tech, many of them will be "cancelled" or ostracized in some way. All of their ideas should be ignored and their money should be barred from, let's say, cancer research?
Is that what we are going for here? I'm trying to understand if there is something deeper than I'm perceiving.
Is that what we are going for here? I'm trying to understand if there is something deeper than I'm perceiving.
That certainly sound like some of the more extreme attacks on science and mathematics from certain political perspectives.
I think ultimately this is a situation where the process is the product. There is no end goal really. People just feel good about themselves for annihilating the transgressors. People do not feel good about conflicted situations or living with realities.
I think ultimately this is a situation where the process is the product. There is no end goal really. People just feel good about themselves for annihilating the transgressors. People do not feel good about conflicted situations or living with realities.
It’s some kind of only those of pure heart may partake in our magic type mentality.
... The centerpiece of which is "Your process/idea/thinking must consult our oracle of moral rightness and adhere to its adjudication" which is why it's so useful to woke culture proponents as a political tool, because it implies that it's not possible to write down the rules by which the oracle operates so that you don't need to consult it every time. You just have to keep paying into your political capital with the rent-seeking oracle of moral rightness and hope that it is merciful in its ministrations.
The real question is are there enough serial rapists in science? They seem to be many more women than serial rapists in science, perhaps that's where we should be focusing our diversity efforts. It really doesn't matter who they rape, as long as it isn't their research subjects, as that would be unethical.
A rapist, in prison, can still operate their own scientific research organizations, invest in others, donate to others
Someone that raped is in prison for rape. Their funds are not subject to civil or criminal forfeiture, and it wouldn’t make sense for it to be, so explain the expectations of illiquidity here.
Someone that raped is in prison for rape. Their funds are not subject to civil or criminal forfeiture, and it wouldn’t make sense for it to be, so explain the expectations of illiquidity here.
>Someone that raped is in prison for rape. Their funds are not subject to civil or criminal forfeiture, and it wouldn’t make sense for it to be //
It would make sense to me. Take away all the luxuries from those who commit the vilest of offences; use the money/resources for those not committing atrocities.
Could you expand on why you feel rich people who are convicted of rape should be allowed to enjoy massive wealth status and control of resources far beyond their needs. Isn't putting people back to zero, with support to continue in a societally beneficial way (healthcare, housing, food, education) a proper reaction?
It would make sense to me. Take away all the luxuries from those who commit the vilest of offences; use the money/resources for those not committing atrocities.
Could you expand on why you feel rich people who are convicted of rape should be allowed to enjoy massive wealth status and control of resources far beyond their needs. Isn't putting people back to zero, with support to continue in a societally beneficial way (healthcare, housing, food, education) a proper reaction?
“Prosperity preaching” is the root of your cognitive dissonance, there is no relation to moral behavior and economic reality and we have no framework for making that so, primarily due to the 5th amendment of the constitution which that bars expropriation. It is pure theology which tries to intrinsically tie morality and economic reality, and puts many people at a disadvantage amongst those who never subscribed to that theology.
Even the 6th amendment which has been used to circumvent the 5th amendment in civil forfeiture still requires the property being related to the alleged or actual action, and anyone wealthy enough can undo a civil forfeiture. Criminal forfeiture has a much higher bar of review and also wouldn't be able to be part of your version of reality.
It is not a prerequisite that prisons are full of people that own nothing and return to society with little ability to acquire anything, while people that do own things are able to avoid prison because their lawyers understand the law than the prosecutors. That's just what has become commonplace and is familiar. But the prisons or conviction itself does not strip people of their property titles, when the title is unrelated, and when wealthier people do wind up in prison they do not have the same level of inconvenience in prison or when returning to society, as they don't need as much external infrastructure to get by.
Even the 6th amendment which has been used to circumvent the 5th amendment in civil forfeiture still requires the property being related to the alleged or actual action, and anyone wealthy enough can undo a civil forfeiture. Criminal forfeiture has a much higher bar of review and also wouldn't be able to be part of your version of reality.
It is not a prerequisite that prisons are full of people that own nothing and return to society with little ability to acquire anything, while people that do own things are able to avoid prison because their lawyers understand the law than the prosecutors. That's just what has become commonplace and is familiar. But the prisons or conviction itself does not strip people of their property titles, when the title is unrelated, and when wealthier people do wind up in prison they do not have the same level of inconvenience in prison or when returning to society, as they don't need as much external infrastructure to get by.
Thanks for your comment. I should note that I'm just feeling this idea out:
>Prosperity preaching //
I think you've got it flipped. I'm not saying financial gain comes to those who 'believe' (I assume we're meaning those who are beneficial in society; indeed to some extent I think it's the opposite) but that justice should strip at least some of the cushion from the wealthy who are convicted of the most heinous crimes.
Yes, I realise that might not be consistent with USA constitutional law - but that doesn't necessarily show it to be a wrong course.
Basically I agree with your last paragraph and seek to equalise things - make leaving prison less onerous for the underprivileged and more for those for whom it causes little hindrance.
Why morally shouldn't punishment of convicted offenders sell to bring them down financially to a basic level?
>Prosperity preaching //
I think you've got it flipped. I'm not saying financial gain comes to those who 'believe' (I assume we're meaning those who are beneficial in society; indeed to some extent I think it's the opposite) but that justice should strip at least some of the cushion from the wealthy who are convicted of the most heinous crimes.
Yes, I realise that might not be consistent with USA constitutional law - but that doesn't necessarily show it to be a wrong course.
Basically I agree with your last paragraph and seek to equalise things - make leaving prison less onerous for the underprivileged and more for those for whom it causes little hindrance.
Why morally shouldn't punishment of convicted offenders sell to bring them down financially to a basic level?
> 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.
To be crystal clear, i'm not arguing that he shouldn't be ostracized, or that Harvard should have let him donate. I'm just arguing against over-simplifying his identity because we don't want to share anything in common with him (liking science).
To be crystal clear, i'm not arguing that he shouldn't be ostracized, or that Harvard should have let him donate. I'm just arguing against over-simplifying his identity because we don't want to share anything in common with him (liking science).
The core accusation is not that he was a sexual predator, it is that he was using minors to trap and control people, for as yet an unidentified beneficiary.
I was disappointed with the article for a different reason. It starts out by saying it's not just about Jeffrey Epstein, but then it's mostly about Jeffrey Epstein.
I mean, Jeffrey Epstein is a problem of course, and his example helps to illustrate the problem, but the core of the issue is that things cost money, so the people with money call the shots. This can undermine the honesty and independence and objectivity of science, of journalism, of politics, of democracy, or any other aspect of life.
Money is power, and that makes a very unequal distribution of money a problem. To science, but also to many other aspects of our society.
I mean, Jeffrey Epstein is a problem of course, and his example helps to illustrate the problem, but the core of the issue is that things cost money, so the people with money call the shots. This can undermine the honesty and independence and objectivity of science, of journalism, of politics, of democracy, or any other aspect of life.
Money is power, and that makes a very unequal distribution of money a problem. To science, but also to many other aspects of our society.
#5 neglects the fact that Epstein had an office on campus, which is far more interesting than the number of times he was invited in by staff. (Covered in more detail by someone else, below.)
He had an office when he was a visiting fellow. Which is prior to his arrest.
My reading is that Epstein had an office when he was a student, before being conviction, but not after. After conviction he visited others in their offices.
Epstein was never a student at any point at Harvard
He bought his way into the role, but my understanding is that he was.
From the Harvard Report:
As to Epstein’s appointment as a Visiting Fellow, the initial appointment occurred in 2005, before Epstein’s arrest. The Visiting Fellow designation is now, as it was in 2005, granted to an independent researcher registered with Harvard’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences as a graduate research student.
....
Nevertheless, he applied to be re-admitted for a second year, the 2006-2007 academic year, and was again admitted, but he withdrew from that appointment following his arrest and before the new academic year began.
From the Harvard Report:
As to Epstein’s appointment as a Visiting Fellow, the initial appointment occurred in 2005, before Epstein’s arrest. The Visiting Fellow designation is now, as it was in 2005, granted to an independent researcher registered with Harvard’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences as a graduate research student.
....
Nevertheless, he applied to be re-admitted for a second year, the 2006-2007 academic year, and was again admitted, but he withdrew from that appointment following his arrest and before the new academic year began.
I'm pretty sure "visiting fellow" is not the same thing as "student"
>graduate research student
Please read the entire comment
Please read the entire comment
Epstein was briefly a grad student at NYU's Courant Institute under Boris Kupershmidt
[deleted]
But that is the statement of Harvard, I think the article depicts a wider angle of knowledge.
One was an extensive report done by Harvard that was based on first hand interviews of the people involved. This post is some guy on the internet who claims to have done no original research who has an opinion from reading 2nd and 3rd hand sources. (which were probably based on the harvard report)
Article's details don't truly deliver on headline.
Epstein funded his pet research areas, yes. But all sources of funding including government grants do the same, one way or another. And across all rich funders, the variety of interests is very large, and include areas other more institutional funding bureaucracies ignore.
Also, despite Epstein's (somewhat still-underexplained) wealth & largesse, his money was a drop in the bucket. When the article points out that "more than two thirds of Epstein's donations—$6.5 million—went to PED director Martin Nowak" – an already well-funded researcher, it actually undermines its case. Epstein gave less than $10 million total? And to established programs? How does a tiny bit of funding, from an extreme-outlier bete-noire, to some not-even-fringe programs, make any negative general case against private funding?
That such private funding picks a different mix of researchers than the Harvard Professor writing this article would pick is the point - don't send all funding through the exact same credentialed-panels of established academia. Accept some curve-ball initiatives from other uncorrelated piles-of-resources.
The article's one tangible example of some favors flowing from a Harvard academic to Epstein's defense – Epstein's lawyer Dershowitz getting some linguistic advice from Steven Pinker – doesn't involve research funding at all. Someone's high-end legal counsel is being paid specifically to marshal resources & expertise for their defense. There's no distorting quid-pro-quo with regard to other payments: it's a totally up-front fee-for-advocacy relationship. (And that's even before considering Dershowitz's other alleged entanglements in Epstein matters.)
Epstein funded his pet research areas, yes. But all sources of funding including government grants do the same, one way or another. And across all rich funders, the variety of interests is very large, and include areas other more institutional funding bureaucracies ignore.
Also, despite Epstein's (somewhat still-underexplained) wealth & largesse, his money was a drop in the bucket. When the article points out that "more than two thirds of Epstein's donations—$6.5 million—went to PED director Martin Nowak" – an already well-funded researcher, it actually undermines its case. Epstein gave less than $10 million total? And to established programs? How does a tiny bit of funding, from an extreme-outlier bete-noire, to some not-even-fringe programs, make any negative general case against private funding?
That such private funding picks a different mix of researchers than the Harvard Professor writing this article would pick is the point - don't send all funding through the exact same credentialed-panels of established academia. Accept some curve-ball initiatives from other uncorrelated piles-of-resources.
The article's one tangible example of some favors flowing from a Harvard academic to Epstein's defense – Epstein's lawyer Dershowitz getting some linguistic advice from Steven Pinker – doesn't involve research funding at all. Someone's high-end legal counsel is being paid specifically to marshal resources & expertise for their defense. There's no distorting quid-pro-quo with regard to other payments: it's a totally up-front fee-for-advocacy relationship. (And that's even before considering Dershowitz's other alleged entanglements in Epstein matters.)
Your argument is logically sound but provably false. Humans are known to compromise their ethics for relatively small amounts of money. For example, Martha Stewart was a billionaire when she engaged in insider trading and then lied about it to the FBI, resulting in her going to federal prison--all to avoid a measly $45,000 loss!
The article makes clear that Epstein was granted physical access to facilities, the title of "visiting fellow at Harvard" in areas of study in which he had no credentials, and getting world-renowned researchers to validate his crackpot theories of racial eugenics due to his wealth.
I mean, you are being reasonable: $10 million in funding is peanuts to Harvard, which has an endowment of almost US $41 billion. But apparently Harvard is willing to lease our their credibility for such "a tiny bit" of money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Stock_trading_c...
https://www.google.com/search?q=harvard+endowment&oq=harvard...
The article makes clear that Epstein was granted physical access to facilities, the title of "visiting fellow at Harvard" in areas of study in which he had no credentials, and getting world-renowned researchers to validate his crackpot theories of racial eugenics due to his wealth.
I mean, you are being reasonable: $10 million in funding is peanuts to Harvard, which has an endowment of almost US $41 billion. But apparently Harvard is willing to lease our their credibility for such "a tiny bit" of money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Stock_trading_c...
https://www.google.com/search?q=harvard+endowment&oq=harvard...
I'd agree the building-access, especially when Epstein was a post-release sex-offender (and when most observers should have already suspected he'd gotten off easy), is most-concerning.
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.
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.
Stewart was found guilty of lying to the FBI, not insider trading. There wasn't enough evidence to convict her of the latter.
Ironically, if she'd simply said nothing to the FBI, she would have walked.
Ironically, if she'd simply said nothing to the FBI, she would have walked.
The point was the small amount that she went to jail for, a drop in the bucket for her wealth
The paymaster always calls the tune, whether it's the government, rich people, corporations, even crowdfunding.
This is why free markets work better, because there are multiple paymasters with varying points of view, not just one.
This is why free markets work better, because there are multiple paymasters with varying points of view, not just one.
The tobacco companies were quite successful, yes. That's why disclosure of competing interests is mandatory these days, it mitigates somewhat the phenomenon of "one dollar, one vote".
>getting world-renowned researchers to validate his crackpot theories of racial eugenics due to his wealth.
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.
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.
Yes, yes there is. Corrupt people should not be able to buy legitimacy.
So hypothetically, people are dying from some easily-cured disease (this part is not the hypothetical), and a corrupt person wants to save their lives in order to "buy legitimacy". We must righteously prevent that person from doing good in the world, because it will complicate people's view of the person? Basically you're proposing to do an evil thing for a "greater good".
Hypothetically that corrupt person might want to engage in eugenics of some sort. Let’s simply keep dirty money out of legit spaces or we might find mafia as a benefactor in some cases. As some mentioned here, the money Epstein donated was a drop in the bucket and insignificant but to him the ifluence he got in exchange was priceless
If you're meaning 'a convicted criminal guilty of a heinous crime' when you say "corrupt person" then why do we even allow them the ability to continue financially such that they can buy an appearance of legitimacy. Release them from prison with access to basic necessities (a half way house) and confiscate the rest - then the demos can direct the money to research without tainting it?
Do you currently think that Epstein is legitimate because of his past donations? Harvard rejected his donations after his convictions. Who thinks he is legit?
> For example, Martha Stewart was a billionaire when she engaged in insider trading and then lied about it to the FBI
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.
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.
I think insider trading is unethical. There ya go
How would you react if you found out a good friend conducted insider trading? Where would you rank it on the scale of jay-waling to murder?
Why?
People work hard their whole lived and put that money into the market. If the market is rigged for insiders then those people are being robbed of their life’s work in a way that they could not have adjusted to or anticipated because the news that trades were based on was not available. It is grabbing money out of the pocket of people in a way that is deeply unfair. I know those types of folks aren’t the only investors, but they’re the ones who screwing them in this way is unethical.
For those unfamiliar with academic research budgets, my lab's NIH budget was recently renewed and totaled to 2 million. So in the same ballpark as this.
2 million is not that much. When you add up research assistantship labor costs, scientific equipment and consumable reagents/materials, it depletes faster than you'd like. And our lab is quite small (~5 students); large ivy league research labs often have a couple dozen people.
2 million is not that much. When you add up research assistantship labor costs, scientific equipment and consumable reagents/materials, it depletes faster than you'd like. And our lab is quite small (~5 students); large ivy league research labs often have a couple dozen people.
Epstein funded his pet research areas, yes. But all sources of funding including government grants do the same, one way or another
Some grant-making-organization and state and private foundations now may have degenerated to the point that they are nothing but schemes for financing someone's pet ideas. But I will claim that at their best, they are better than that.
It seems like it's fashionable to dump on bureaucracies making decisions based on ostensibly objective criteria and assume that their decisions are no better than the pet of ideas of utterly vile people. But I'll stand against fashion and claim that isn't true.
Some grant-making-organization and state and private foundations now may have degenerated to the point that they are nothing but schemes for financing someone's pet ideas. But I will claim that at their best, they are better than that.
It seems like it's fashionable to dump on bureaucracies making decisions based on ostensibly objective criteria and assume that their decisions are no better than the pet of ideas of utterly vile people. But I'll stand against fashion and claim that isn't true.
Reputation-laundering is a thing, you know?
$10 million may not be a lot for Harvard, but it's still a lot of money for the individual researcher it research group.
Sure, okay, agreed that 6 million is not much on a global scale. But you can't be serious if you think 6 million in the hands of one person can't be used for some serious damage. You won't be able to buy a country but you could, i dont know, buy a really nice lab, and then use it to research eugenics or something.
Not a big fan of these 'drop in the bucket' arguments. A breakthrough scientific idea can cost anywhere between 0 dollars and a billion dollars. We don't want that breakthrough to be in the field of eugenics.
Not a big fan of these 'drop in the bucket' arguments. A breakthrough scientific idea can cost anywhere between 0 dollars and a billion dollars. We don't want that breakthrough to be in the field of eugenics.
Of course $6 million can do a lot of damage in the wrong hands. But here, it was already in the wrong hands.
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?
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?
You can't buy a really nice lab for $6M. You can buy a small, underfunded one, and run it for a couple years.
$6M is the equivalent of a few McDonald's franchises.
$6M is the equivalent of a few McDonald's franchises.
You are all naive as babes if you think you can trust that Epstein wasn’t directing research unrelated to the topics announced to the public.
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.
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.
Maybe someone can word this statement in a way that actually describes the problem better for someone not as well-versed in the ins-and-outs of funding in academia?
The Epstein affair brings to light a much larger problem: it undermines the integrity of the research enterprise when individuals can pick and choose lines of inquiry that appeal to them simply because they can pay for them.
People funding research that interests them seems like a pretty innocuous statement by itself. Sure, it's connection to Epstein is blatantly problematic, but if you remove him specifically from the statement, what is the problem being highlighted?
The Epstein affair brings to light a much larger problem: it undermines the integrity of the research enterprise when individuals can pick and choose lines of inquiry that appeal to them simply because they can pay for them.
People funding research that interests them seems like a pretty innocuous statement by itself. Sure, it's connection to Epstein is blatantly problematic, but if you remove him specifically from the statement, what is the problem being highlighted?
The article explains this in the first paragraph, does it not?
- ... the mockery made of academic standards when, after donating $200,000 to the psychology department, Epstein was appointed as a visiting fellow there despite a complete lack of appropriate academic qualifications.
- Even after his release from prison, Epstein continued to be a frequent visitor: between 2010 and 2018 Epstein (at that point a registered sex offender) went to the PED offices more than 40 times. During that period he had an on-campus office and a key card and pass code with which he could enter buildings during off-hours.
Why should a benefactor have access to the research lab they fund?
The article also mentions:
- The New York Times concluded that in this case it led researchers “to give credence to some of Mr. Epstein's half-baked scientific musings.” True or not, it should trouble us that a corrupt man was making decisions affecting research at a major U.S. university. He had no academic competence—yet he effectively made choices about which research initiatives were interesting and promising.
So the problem it seems to be highlighting are twofold: (1) The access and "respectability" gained by donating to harvard without intellectual competence behind it, and (2) His ability to "softly dictate" researchers to give credence to his musings.
For what its worth, I disagree with what the article then proceeds to reach for:
> When peer review operates properly, it identifies the best ideas to support, usually by using panels—not individuals—to see to it that a range of views is represented. The process is imperfect, but women, people of color, young scholars, investigators at nonelite universities and individuals promoting ideas that challenge conventional wisdom at least have a chance
- ... the mockery made of academic standards when, after donating $200,000 to the psychology department, Epstein was appointed as a visiting fellow there despite a complete lack of appropriate academic qualifications.
- Even after his release from prison, Epstein continued to be a frequent visitor: between 2010 and 2018 Epstein (at that point a registered sex offender) went to the PED offices more than 40 times. During that period he had an on-campus office and a key card and pass code with which he could enter buildings during off-hours.
Why should a benefactor have access to the research lab they fund?
The article also mentions:
- The New York Times concluded that in this case it led researchers “to give credence to some of Mr. Epstein's half-baked scientific musings.” True or not, it should trouble us that a corrupt man was making decisions affecting research at a major U.S. university. He had no academic competence—yet he effectively made choices about which research initiatives were interesting and promising.
So the problem it seems to be highlighting are twofold: (1) The access and "respectability" gained by donating to harvard without intellectual competence behind it, and (2) His ability to "softly dictate" researchers to give credence to his musings.
For what its worth, I disagree with what the article then proceeds to reach for:
> When peer review operates properly, it identifies the best ideas to support, usually by using panels—not individuals—to see to it that a range of views is represented. The process is imperfect, but women, people of color, young scholars, investigators at nonelite universities and individuals promoting ideas that challenge conventional wisdom at least have a chance
- ... the mockery made of academic standards when, after donating $200,000 to the psychology department, Epstein was appointed as a visiting fellow there despite a complete lack of appropriate academic qualifications.
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.
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.
I am sure from a fundraising perspective, the 200K was seen as the tip of the iceberg. Harvard plays the long game. The goal is to grow donors from small contributions like this to those 1000x or more larger.
I assume in one case the money goes to the department, in the other only a small fraction of it does, so the department is okay with it.
[deleted]
To me at least, the direction of scientific progress should be in the hands of scientists, not wealthy donors, big corporations or politicians. When the people who control the funding have their own narrow biases, it can't help but corrupt the results. Often, the results just disappear instead of being published when they're not what they're "supposed" to be.
I think narrow biases and unpublished results happen to some extent anyway with the politics/beauracracy that arises from having a small subset of established scientists vote on which science gets funding. I don't disagree with the concerns about wealthy donors/corporations, and I do think it is a good idea to have a large portion of funding allocated by other scientists. But I also feel a little diversity in funding sources can give labs breathing room to be more creative.
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.
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.
> People funding research that interests them seems like a pretty innocuous statement by itself. Sure, it's connection to Epstein is blatantly problematic, but if you remove him specifically from the statement, what is the problem being highlighted?
There are two issues here. First, if it would be politically or financially more convenient to not know something, there is no money provided towards knowing it.
Second, in many cases the donors get to decide whether to publish the results after the research has been done. Naturally if only one of the possible results is inconvenient and the study reaches the inconvenient conclusion, that one doesn't get published. Then all your results are totally invalidated by selection bias.
It also provides the opportunity to do this:
https://xkcd.com/882/
Study doesn't say what you want? Fund another one, maybe tweak it a little, sooner or later it will, and you only publish the one that does.
There are two issues here. First, if it would be politically or financially more convenient to not know something, there is no money provided towards knowing it.
Second, in many cases the donors get to decide whether to publish the results after the research has been done. Naturally if only one of the possible results is inconvenient and the study reaches the inconvenient conclusion, that one doesn't get published. Then all your results are totally invalidated by selection bias.
It also provides the opportunity to do this:
https://xkcd.com/882/
Study doesn't say what you want? Fund another one, maybe tweak it a little, sooner or later it will, and you only publish the one that does.
They pay for the results they want.
See I think the problem with this article is that it doesn't think it could actually make the case that Epstein could pay for results.
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.
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.
Maybe they do, but the article doesn't provide any data to back this up. I would have liked a sample size larger than one
It'd be absolute career suicide for any researcher to have their work publicly bankrolled by Epstein or reveal to the public that their research was aiming for specific goals that Epstein was looking for.
I'm just going to point out that to people that have a concern about wealthy people funding research that is how science has been done long before research grants or anything like that came on the scene.
For a long time art and the sciences were funded by wealthy merchants and kings giving money to people like Lenardo Da Vinci to eat while they worked on their ideas.
Also another point, people worry about the corrupting influence of money on research but there is nothing that stops someone with money from setting up a research lab independent of a university and producing their own research. In fact I would think having the research done with a prestigious university would be a better check on the results because the individuals doing the research are tied deeply into their communities and as such their is more oversight and discussion on the topic.
For a long time art and the sciences were funded by wealthy merchants and kings giving money to people like Lenardo Da Vinci to eat while they worked on their ideas.
Also another point, people worry about the corrupting influence of money on research but there is nothing that stops someone with money from setting up a research lab independent of a university and producing their own research. In fact I would think having the research done with a prestigious university would be a better check on the results because the individuals doing the research are tied deeply into their communities and as such their is more oversight and discussion on the topic.
What are the greatest advances in science and/or technology?
How were those financed?
Is there any evidence of bias toward or away from specific areas based on moneyed, political, or other interests?
How were those financed?
Is there any evidence of bias toward or away from specific areas based on moneyed, political, or other interests?
A couple:
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.
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.
Didn't Einstein do his work during business hours as a government-paid patent clerk?
If people are worried about scientific donors having undue influence, a much cleaner route than trying to stop donations or screen every person is to simply require that donations be anonymous. That way, everyone still has the freedom to sponsor whatever they want, but nobody gets bribed to overlook sex trafficking.
I don't think that works in practice. If you donate money with the goal of advancing some agenda, and it's officially anonymous, you'll find a way of letting the right people know it was you.
> That way, everyone still has the freedom to sponsor whatever they want
That still has a distortion effect on the institution and scientific community. And that's assuming the world's top scientists could never possibly guess that the only rich dude who always talks about X is making large anonymous donations to support research on X...
The correct way to do this is to fund a non-profit that then hires a set of third party reviewers to award grants on a competitive basis around one or more themes. This is how Elon Musk and Bill Gates do things, for example.
But no matter how you package it, anyone with a real reputation has more to gain than to lose by taking money from a pedophile. Harvard's/MIT's admins were trying to protect their faculty's reputation.
That still has a distortion effect on the institution and scientific community. And that's assuming the world's top scientists could never possibly guess that the only rich dude who always talks about X is making large anonymous donations to support research on X...
The correct way to do this is to fund a non-profit that then hires a set of third party reviewers to award grants on a competitive basis around one or more themes. This is how Elon Musk and Bill Gates do things, for example.
But no matter how you package it, anyone with a real reputation has more to gain than to lose by taking money from a pedophile. Harvard's/MIT's admins were trying to protect their faculty's reputation.
There's a comment below about Da Vinci, but I'd say that the problem claimed in this article has been around since Archimedes yelled "Eureka" in his bath. The way science has tried to protect itself has always been when research is published, not when it was funded. But it's also a mistake to think that funders have that much influence on research. Scientists usually study what they want and there's been thousands of years of attempts to develop systems to try force them to study what they're paid for that are still not completely effective.
Where did Epstein get his unfortunate ideas? From other scientists! Young researchers very early learn that their main task is the same as start up founders - to inspire people they talk with about their research in order take their money (or recruit them to the lab). I think that truth and societal value are often easiest to convey but obviously not always.
Where did Epstein get his unfortunate ideas? From other scientists! Young researchers very early learn that their main task is the same as start up founders - to inspire people they talk with about their research in order take their money (or recruit them to the lab). I think that truth and societal value are often easiest to convey but obviously not always.
There's a comment below about Da Vinci, but I'd say that the problem claimed in this article has been around since Archimedes yelled "Eureka" in his bath. The way science has tried to protect itself has always been when research is published, not when it was funded.
This unfortunately comment is filled with bad and dubious comment but this seems notably deceptive. Society has to various extents aimed to protect itself from the very worst behavior and the worst people - and has succeed in to a rather spotty extent, certainly. Still, every stage of science has involved some filtering out of the bad and worst. The increase in science's scale has lessened the degree to which a scientist had to be "respectable" but added filters like objective grant criteria, etc. Still, there's no way a single filtering method can work. You can't count on publications to weed out determined frauds - science counts on a certain ethos from scientists (and counts now less than it should and suffers for this). Science needs a community of honesty and it's significant the number of commentators who can't understand this here.
This unfortunately comment is filled with bad and dubious comment but this seems notably deceptive. Society has to various extents aimed to protect itself from the very worst behavior and the worst people - and has succeed in to a rather spotty extent, certainly. Still, every stage of science has involved some filtering out of the bad and worst. The increase in science's scale has lessened the degree to which a scientist had to be "respectable" but added filters like objective grant criteria, etc. Still, there's no way a single filtering method can work. You can't count on publications to weed out determined frauds - science counts on a certain ethos from scientists (and counts now less than it should and suffers for this). Science needs a community of honesty and it's significant the number of commentators who can't understand this here.
Suppose you remove the wealthy people funding research that interests them. Now you’re left with the alternative of doing no research?
I dont really understand what people want to happen:
So you “cancel” a guy that doesn't need employment or advertisements to get anything done, by condemning anyone that received money from him.
What do people want to happen to the money instead?
What punishment do people think they are enacting?
Has anyone actually thought that far?
So you “cancel” a guy that doesn't need employment or advertisements to get anything done, by condemning anyone that received money from him.
What do people want to happen to the money instead?
What punishment do people think they are enacting?
Has anyone actually thought that far?
I chatted with a friend who was in a Harvard class with one of the biology professors funded by Epstein. In like 2015 or so (before Epstein was a huge public deal) someone asked him about it and his response to the class was "What am I supposed to do - tell the sex offender to keep his money so he can spend it on more sex crimes?"
I think the issue is that there is always something in return. If you accepted money and it was truly anonymous and Epstein never talked to the professors or whatever than it would be hard to say its bad. But clearly people (good or bad - but always rich) are getting a lot of prestige, access, bragging rights, or whatever from these type of donations.
I think the issue is that there is always something in return. If you accepted money and it was truly anonymous and Epstein never talked to the professors or whatever than it would be hard to say its bad. But clearly people (good or bad - but always rich) are getting a lot of prestige, access, bragging rights, or whatever from these type of donations.
I'm with the professor on this one. This practice of shaming organizations because they received cash gifts seems odd to me. Seems like another kind of "first world" angst that I'll be struggling to explain to friends in other countries. It's not like they were naming a building after him.
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.
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.
Take the Mel Brooks approach to movie financing: I'll condescend to take your money but I'm totally uninterested in you or your ideas.
That assumes that “wealthy people funding research” is the only source of research funding.
Sure if Epstein was funding a bunch of research 100% we could just ignore it and move on... some man hours wasted. But if the guys he funded got other funding, taking it away from people researching stuff that isn’t eugenics, then there is a problem.
Sure if Epstein was funding a bunch of research 100% we could just ignore it and move on... some man hours wasted. But if the guys he funded got other funding, taking it away from people researching stuff that isn’t eugenics, then there is a problem.
If we want to make speculations of what research could be, I would like to speculate that research could be funded by society as a whole and its benefits go to society as a whole.
I think how much research is societally funded vs personally funded seem pretty orthogonal to me.
Should society spend more money on research? Yes
Should society ban individuals from spending money on research? No
Should society spend more money on research? Yes
Should society ban individuals from spending money on research? No
> Should society ban individuals from spending money on research? No
Agreed. No one is saying otherwise!
The actual question at hand is whether large institutions should allow their faculty to take money from arbitrary sources. This is a question both for the institutions and for the institutions' major stakeholders/clients (which, in the case of Harvard, includes the federal government).
Epstein could've started a stand-alone research institute and hired a bunch of people away from their tenured faculty positions. I doubt many excellent researchers would've taken him up on that offer, but he surely could've recruited some bright young unknowns in any field other than CS with less-than-FAANG salaries! He could've also donated to someone else's research institute.
I think it's fair to say that Epstein cost these institutions far more in reputational damage than he provided in cash. So the choice re: him seems pretty straight-forward.
Agreed. No one is saying otherwise!
The actual question at hand is whether large institutions should allow their faculty to take money from arbitrary sources. This is a question both for the institutions and for the institutions' major stakeholders/clients (which, in the case of Harvard, includes the federal government).
Epstein could've started a stand-alone research institute and hired a bunch of people away from their tenured faculty positions. I doubt many excellent researchers would've taken him up on that offer, but he surely could've recruited some bright young unknowns in any field other than CS with less-than-FAANG salaries! He could've also donated to someone else's research institute.
I think it's fair to say that Epstein cost these institutions far more in reputational damage than he provided in cash. So the choice re: him seems pretty straight-forward.
The article seems to purposefully obfuscate this, but all of the money he donated was before his arrest. And when he tried to donate more money after his arrest Harvard said no.
[deleted]
The second question is leaving a lot to be desired. Which individuals? What if they're part of an organisation? What is the actual research they are trying to fund? What could they gain from the research? What do you mean by 'should society ban'?
I could go on... These are important qualifiers. There is an imbalance of power when it comes to people like Epstein and you need to be careful how this imbalance affects science. If your wealth/person ratio is immensely high i'd start to raise eyebrows.
I could go on... These are important qualifiers. There is an imbalance of power when it comes to people like Epstein and you need to be careful how this imbalance affects science. If your wealth/person ratio is immensely high i'd start to raise eyebrows.
> Which individuals? What if they're part of an organisation? What is the actual research they are trying to fund? What could they gain from the research?
Legally, I think any individual should be able to write any other individual a check so that the second individual can afford to study any subject. I assume institutions will have more restrictions to maintain scientific credibility.
> What do you mean by 'should society ban'?
This doesn't seem confusing to me. Banning means to legally restrict. With an onerous example being "Only the government can fund research, private contributions to any organization that performs research is banned". Maybe you could elucidate which part of that was unclear.
Legally, I think any individual should be able to write any other individual a check so that the second individual can afford to study any subject. I assume institutions will have more restrictions to maintain scientific credibility.
> What do you mean by 'should society ban'?
This doesn't seem confusing to me. Banning means to legally restrict. With an onerous example being "Only the government can fund research, private contributions to any organization that performs research is banned". Maybe you could elucidate which part of that was unclear.
I just think agreeing to let any individual in all cases, legally, be able to give money to another individual for research, is maybe jumping the gun a bit. Ok perhaps you don't agree with my idea of wealth inequality, fair enough, but if for example you are trying to fund WMD research, or research into pseudoscience, or research that is inherently biased, I would actually like to see that banned I'm afraid. Other workarounds maybe include banning the research area itself, or banning newspapers from publishing it, whatever.
Yeah it seems like we have two very different views of what government should do, you want to live in a society where what you can spend your money on is heavily restricted, the government has strong powers to restrict what newspapers can publish, and the government decides what types of science are approved, biased, and pseudoscience.
That government seems closer to something like China, where I prefer a less authoritarian government where individuals have more control over what they can say, and spend money on. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
That government seems closer to something like China, where I prefer a less authoritarian government where individuals have more control over what they can say, and spend money on. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
I think individuals simply shouldn't have that much influence over the brightest minds via having more money.
It seems strange to me to believe that a wealthy person can spend a 100 million dollars on a yacht, but if he instead gives that money to one of the brightest minds we have a problem.
This is the big paradox of the situation. Of course we want investment in science. But we don't want science to only serve the interests of the rich. We don't want the rich to choose which science happens.
And the same goes for many other aspects of life. Money buys power, so the rich get to decide a lot, and that undermines democracy, objective journalism, and much more.
So maybe we want money not to buy power, but only luxury? But then you get rich people who only spend their money on luxury yachts and give back nothing to society.
And the same goes for many other aspects of life. Money buys power, so the rich get to decide a lot, and that undermines democracy, objective journalism, and much more.
So maybe we want money not to buy power, but only luxury? But then you get rich people who only spend their money on luxury yachts and give back nothing to society.
No I think the former should not be possible either.
That seems rather objectifying of the brightest minds. They have their own agency and motivations. It is ultimately up to them whether they are swayed or tell objectionable sources to get bent.
It is unclear from the article that that Epstein had any influence over what the brightest minds were researching.
What if one party has all the money?
Wrong dichotomy.
>but we have broad evidence that the interests of funders often influence the work done.
As opposed to Government, drug company and institutional funders; they NEVER influence the work done.
Epstein was an evil asshole, and Harvard is a disgusting, sinister institution, but concentrating on rubbish like this overlooks the insane, ridiculous, overt and pervasive problems with science research funding that don't involve funding by the creepy dude who didn't kill himself, and who the media otherwise seems strangely incurious about.
As opposed to Government, drug company and institutional funders; they NEVER influence the work done.
Epstein was an evil asshole, and Harvard is a disgusting, sinister institution, but concentrating on rubbish like this overlooks the insane, ridiculous, overt and pervasive problems with science research funding that don't involve funding by the creepy dude who didn't kill himself, and who the media otherwise seems strangely incurious about.
It's a fact that wealthy donors support specific research that interests them.
On the one hand, hasn't research always been funded like this? Wealthy patrons have always supported work that somehow gratified them. And history is replete with despicable personalities who have nevertheless financed good science.
On the other hand, when the patron's interests turn out to be questionable, the research supported by those interests can be examined. It's okay to give it a second thought in light of new information about the patron.
I happen to think this article raises valid questions. For example, I have questions about the idea of buying a visiting fellowship. I have questions about the mechanisms by which faculty become oddly encumbered by donations.
On the one hand, hasn't research always been funded like this? Wealthy patrons have always supported work that somehow gratified them. And history is replete with despicable personalities who have nevertheless financed good science.
On the other hand, when the patron's interests turn out to be questionable, the research supported by those interests can be examined. It's okay to give it a second thought in light of new information about the patron.
I happen to think this article raises valid questions. For example, I have questions about the idea of buying a visiting fellowship. I have questions about the mechanisms by which faculty become oddly encumbered by donations.
> The New York Times concluded that in this case it led researchers “to give credence to some of Mr. Epstein's half-baked scientific musings.” True or not, it should trouble us that a corrupt man was making decisions affecting research at a major U.S. university.
True or not? Really? I would have liked if this article shared statistics instead of being so ambigious
True or not? Really? I would have liked if this article shared statistics instead of being so ambigious
"Lend credence" is an underhanded phrasing given that it can mean both "consider it more credible in theories" vs "associating with the evil crackpot makes him look more credible". One can argue a responsiblity to avoid both but the two are not at all identical - one is a corruption of their output while the other is essentially a confidence trick like saying a Harvard professor supports homeopathy - ignoring that it was a Philosophy professor and not Biology or Medical. Bad for the institutional reputation but doesn't discredit the work in itself.
I see a lot of comments are criticizing the article, because it seems to damn the fundamentals of how research is funded. I think that response to the article is justified. That is, yea - science needs a way to be funded, and it should be wealthy people that foot the bill... altruistically.
The author, Naomi Oreskes, is a prominent scholar of science history who has written extensively on the corruption of research for political purposes by, for example, tobacco companies.
"The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught" --H.L.Mencken
[deleted]
The things the average faculty member would do for a 100k grant are truly disgusting, and would probably make Epstein retch.
From my understanding Epstein was an intelligence agent, who worked the honey trap line. Compromising politicians, scientists & actors. This is pretty well laid out by now re FBI Charing documents for Maxwell.
Is this not the common understanding of the situation?
Is this not the common understanding of the situation?
Links?
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1291491...
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.
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.
What is really distorting research are all those moralistic jerks off
> What made it even worse was that Epstein was a latter-day eugenicist whose interests were tied to a delusional notion of seeding the human race with his own DNA. Given this stance, it is particularly disturbing that he focused his largesse on research on the genetic basis of human behavior. Human genetics is an ethically sensitive and intellectually contested domain where it behooves us to ensure that the highest standards of scientific rigor are in place and that nongenetic explanations for behavior are given a fair chance to compete.
This is a thinly veiled attack on evolutionary biology, which keeps coming up with plausible explanations that are nevertheless utterly disturbing to the self-image of a moral human being and must therefore be suppressed from its consciousness. This is an undue conflation of science (is) and morals (ought). Morals are an artifact of human experience with nature, nature itself is amoral.
For instance, let's ask: Why does rape exist?
Sociologist: writes twenty paragraphs on patriarchy and rape culture while ignoring the rest of the animal kingdom
Evolutionary Biologist: It's a successful strategy for reproduction, the selfish gene promotes its continued existence
If the sociologist is right, then rape should disappear in an enlightened culture that has abolished all male dominance (utopianism). If the biologist is right, then rape will not disappear without identifying and muting all gene sequences that might lead an individual to be a rapist (eugenics).
In reality, neither are practical solutions, both explanations are bound to be contributing factors, but with one disregarding the other, we lose the ability to draw rational conclusions and devise functioning systems.
This is a thinly veiled attack on evolutionary biology, which keeps coming up with plausible explanations that are nevertheless utterly disturbing to the self-image of a moral human being and must therefore be suppressed from its consciousness. This is an undue conflation of science (is) and morals (ought). Morals are an artifact of human experience with nature, nature itself is amoral.
For instance, let's ask: Why does rape exist?
Sociologist: writes twenty paragraphs on patriarchy and rape culture while ignoring the rest of the animal kingdom
Evolutionary Biologist: It's a successful strategy for reproduction, the selfish gene promotes its continued existence
If the sociologist is right, then rape should disappear in an enlightened culture that has abolished all male dominance (utopianism). If the biologist is right, then rape will not disappear without identifying and muting all gene sequences that might lead an individual to be a rapist (eugenics).
In reality, neither are practical solutions, both explanations are bound to be contributing factors, but with one disregarding the other, we lose the ability to draw rational conclusions and devise functioning systems.
https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2020/report-regarding...
Does a far better job.
1. Jeffrey Epstein gives 9 million dollars to Harvard researchers. 6.5 was for PED, with an additional 23.5 from his foundation. This funds PED's creation
2. Jeffrey Epstein gave $200,000 to Department Chair of Psychology, he applied to be a Visiting Fellow. The Chair supported his application, and Epstein was granted Visiting Fellow status for the 2005-2006 academic year.
3. Jeffrey Epstein was arrested, so he withdrew his application for being a Visiting Fellow for the 2006-2007 academic year.
4. Epstein tries to donate to Harvard again, and Harvard denies him due to his arrest record. He makes no more donations to Harvard despite several professors lobbying administration. He does however introduce several professors to rich philanthropists who do make donations.
5. Epstein maintained a relationship with Martin Novak (director of the PED, which Epstein funded), who let Epstein on campus 40 times between 2010 and 2018. There is no evidence he engaged with any undergrad students. He used these visits to speak with prominent faculty.