
Epstein’s Links to Scientists Are More Extensive Than Previously Thought - msghacq
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-science-donations-apologies-statements
======
wpietri
That is one hell of a list.

According to friends, Epstein showed up at a TED conference circa 1999 with 6
plus-ones, all listed as "Mrs Jeffery Epstein". (The tickets were something
like $5k in 2019 dollars.) They don't recall them as being under-age, but it
definitely seemed sleazy. Their recollection is that Epstein used them to meet
people; the women would go chat somebody up and bring them back to Epstein.

Abusers are well known for grooming victims, but they also groom allies. So
it's not surprising that among this list we find people who are either
hopelessly naive or of dubious character themselves. In retrospect it doesn't
seem like a coincidence that around the same time Bill Clinton and Kevin
Spacey were zooming around on Epstein's plane.

Let that be a lesson to all of us. If we suddenly experience an overwhelming
amount of positive attention, it's worth asking ourselves whether it's the
love-bombing [1] common to narcissistic manipulators.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing)

~~~
rjf72
A scientist believes he can potentially meaningfully improve the world and
nature of mankind with his research, but he's having trouble obtaining
funding. He's offered funding by the worst human imaginable with no strings
attached other than said patron being seen as the patron. Is it more moral to
accept the money, or to reject it?

~~~
wpietri
Let's get specific. Exactly which research do you think meaningfully improved
the world? And assuming you have some, by how much?

Following that, we can take a look at the harm done by Epstein and do some
comparisons.

~~~
rjf72
That's up to you. The reason I asked the question is because it's one, based
on the comments here, that I think many people weren't asking themselves. And
that's akin to condemning a man for 'x' without ever asking yourself if 'x' is
even wrong.

As it's a moral question, there's not going to be any unambiguous right or
wrong answer and we're all going to have different perspectives. One might
even argue that you have a moral imperative to take his money for practically
any reason so long as you are not directly assisting his other actions, since
it means you are taking a chip, regardless of how small, out of the resources
he had to carry on with said other actions.

As another example on this topic in Columbia the big drug dealers would
frequently use their ill gotten wealth to do positive things such as fund
schools for local towns. And these guys were involved in far worse behavior -
murdering large numbers of people, often in brutal fashion to send a message.
And that was similarly no secret. Should the townspeople have rejected their
offer?

~~~
wpietri
If your point is that applied morality is complex, I don't think you're saying
anything new.

But you replied to my point about abusers exploiting the well-meaning and
naive. I don't see what bringing up an obvious fact about moral complexity
does here, especially since you refuse to engage usefully with your own point.
Except of course to confuse the issue.

In practice, I don't think I've seen any attempts by Epstein associates to
really grapple with the moral balance, to weigh the ends against the means.
What I mostly see is them taking the money and either supporting him or
dodging the hard questions. There isn't anybody willing to say, "Yeah, I
suspected he was a manipulative, sex-trafficking pedophile, but I was cool
with it because here's what the world got out of it."

There are plenty of good places to discuss moral nuances. But maybe try it in
a place where it doesn't derail from holding people accountable for their
behavior.

~~~
rjf72
I'm not "engaging" because I'm not taking any specific position. In my
experience debating moral values is about as productive as punching yourself
in the face. These are issues that people should come to their own _personal_
conclusions on. But as mentioned the issue I saw here is that many people were
seemingly not even _considering_ the underlying moral issue here before racing
to condemn.

Online 'accountability' often heads directly into the domain of mob mentality.
I think if more people stopped to ask 'hey is our outrage even really
justified?' that the world be a much nicer place for everybody.

~~~
wpietri
Morality is inherently social. A person living alone on an island has no need
of morality. So I don't think the notion of a strictly personal morality even
makes sense.

And neither do you, or you wouldn't be here arguing for some very specific
moral choices of your own. You claim you're not taking any specific position,
but you of course are. Your repeated intervention in the discussion
demonstrates that. And your unwillingness to spell out the implications of
that position is telling.

------
qazpot
So everyone who ever worked or met Epstein is guilty by association ?

Is this what journalism is ? - Naming and Shaming people where there is no
crime or unethical act committed.

~~~
msghacq
These people also socialized with him and when they accepted money from him it
was _after_ he was a convicted sex offender.

Look at Ethan Zuckerman's post on leaving MIT where you can see he urged Joi
Ito to not get involved with Epstein because it was already well known that he
was abusing underage girls:

[http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-
the-...](http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-the-media-
lab/)

~~~
natalyarostova
Should we shame and refuse association with people who have already been tried
and convicted and served their punishment? And should we then shame those who
do work with people who went through the justice system?

What about hiring people who are ex felons who served time?

Who should decide what ex-cons we can and can't associate with? I'd like to
know ahead of time, because I want to give the right people a second chance,
but also avoid having my career ruined for giving the wrong person a second
chance. Which twitter mob will enumerate this for me?

Perhaps in this case the problem is that corruption resulted in Epstein
getting far too light of a sentence. I think it did. Is it the fault of normal
civilians for not realizing and compensating for judicial corruption? Should
we ruin their careers for the failure of our elected officials to prevent
corruption?

~~~
msghacq
Yes, it's not a good idea for high profile people (or anyone really) to work
with convicted sex offenders. It was well known at the time that he got off
very easy for his crimes. There was a lot of media coverage.

Optically it's bad, morally it's bad. There's also more to this than just
"work" as well. If someone was a convicted child rapist, would you invite them
and a bunch of young women to your parties and take pictures like this?

[https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1165266579560521728](https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1165266579560521728)

~~~
natalyarostova
I recognize the point you're making, and I think it's fair to an extent,
Epstein was a weird disturbed man. But my general point remains: who can make
this clear for me (us?) ahead of time. If the rule is "give people a second
chance, except those accused of the following sex crimes -- they must be
shamed forever" fine. But I want it clear. Otherwise I worry we will find
ourselves in a world where everyone, in fear of their career, avoids ever
associating with the wrong person.

If we think our laws aren't working, so we need Twitter vigilante shame
justice, i would prefer we rework our laws

~~~
msghacq
I don't think this is that unclear. 99% of people would not invite a convicted
child rapist and his entourage of young women to a party, take pictures with
them then fly in a private jet (already called the "Lolita Express") to his
residences that have already been in the news for being the locations of child
rape.

~~~
jacknews
he funded some scientists, whom he met by attending scientific conventions, or
attracted via TED, etc, in many cases.

I don't think there is any claim that these scientists attended his under-age
orgies, and were thus granted funding.

------
empath75
No on has ever explained where he got all his money from. It seems like he
blackmailed a bunch of extremely wealthy people into giving him money to
‘manage’ and then used that money to ensnare more and wealthier and
influential people. He probably contacted and funded far more people than he
managed to compromise.

It looks like he started with the current attorney general’s father, who hired
him to teach at a school despite him not having any relevant credentials, then
managed to get to one of the kids parents who brought him to Wall Street.

~~~
svd4anything
I suspect each and every “customer” he had was compromised/blackmailed.
Additionally there are subtle indications that he has intelligence connections
and was perhaps even state sponsored. Now which state ... well of course I’ll
be flagged and downvoting to suggest this but most logical is Mossad.
Interesting he had a fake Saudi passport and diamonds, among many many other
hints there is an intelligence angle to this story.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Now which state ... well of course I’ll be flagged and downvoting to suggest
> this but most logical is Mossad.

I know Mossad has a reputation of being a law unto itself unbound by outside
authority, but it is not actually a distinct state—if you want to say Israel,
just say Israel.

~~~
svd4anything
Ok sure but how can I say it without being accused of being anti-semitic, I
was thinking using the intelligence agency name is more appropriate than an
entire country!

I am NOT ever anti-semitic, but maybe Mossad gets away with crazy stuff
exactly because any westerner who complains is immediately branded as such.

Note: the entire post is flagged now and removed from HN front page.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Ok sure but how can I say it without being accused of being anti-semitic

It would help to present some rational basis supporting the, conclusion.

Of course, if you can't see how your conclusion could be seen as anything
other than anti-Semitic, maybe there is a reason for that.

~~~
svd4anything
No there is many indicators that Mossad is the most likely sponsor. His well
established link to Ehud Barak the ex-PM who has deep extensive intelligence
history is an example. It would be extremely long post to detail all the
evidence.

It’s not unreasonable to suspect he successfully compromised both a sitting US
president and the son of the Queen of England, and that is only the beginning
of the list.

Which intel agency is most likely? Obviously Mossad should be at the top of
the list ... but yeah OK let’s remove it, I’m anti-semitic.

------
jug
That particular aspect of his persona may be somewhat interesting, but I
dislike how they need to list names of scientists and walk them through. It
makes it uncomfortably transparent why Buzzfeed is doing this and I disagree
with them. If anything, pedophilia can be expected to be a very privately held
and guarded part of oneself and none of these persons can be expected to have
known. Acting on pedophilia is one of those crimes that really, REALLY need to
have a smoking gun for associations not the least because it can be so
damaging to others being falsely accused.

~~~
msghacq
There was nothing private about it. There was a ton of media coverage at the
time about Epstein molesting young girls. Ethan Zuckerman urged Joi Ito not to
get involved with him but was ignored:

[http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-
the-...](http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-the-media-
lab/)

------
msghacq
A lot of this information came out last week on Xeni's Twitter account:
[https://twitter.com/xeni](https://twitter.com/xeni)

She's been doing an amazing job digging into Epstein's relationships with the
science and tech community (some of it first hand).

For example:
[https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1165266579560521728](https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1165266579560521728)

~~~
ebg13
The digging is skilled, but the assumptions that go with them don't appear to
be supported?

> _" John Brockman knew. Here he is with one of Jeffrey Epstein’s rape victims
> on one side, and alleged abuse coordinator"_

Being photographed with someone isn't the same as knowing that they're being
raped. Is there more to that?

~~~
larrywright
You wouldn’t find it odd that someone who had no children of his own was
constantly surrounded by teenage girls? I sure would. Yes, that’s not the same
as _knowing_ that they’re being raped, but I’d sure want to distance myself
from someone who was behaving like that.

~~~
ebg13
Being odd is not a crime. What any one person would do is often not a strong
indicator of what is right. A lot of people also like to distance themselves
from black people. Them being black is not the same as _knowing_ that they're
violent criminals, but...

The kind of thought process that you're suggesting has very toxic tendrils.

~~~
larrywright
Let me put it this way: a middle-aged man, with no children of his own,
regularly hanging out with underaged girls is more than odd - it’s a warning
sign. There really aren’t many (if any) non-sleazy explanations for that
behavior. He didn’t even have a credible cover story, like working with
disadvantaged young women.

Comparing this to avoiding black people based solely on the color of their
skin (and not that there are warning signs) is not remotely the same.

~~~
ebg13
> _it’s a warning sign_

Or it's not, because your preconceptions aren't universal? Is there a factual
basis for this other than "I don't like it"?

> _Comparing this to avoiding black people based solely on the color of their
> skin (and not that there are warning signs) is not remotely the same._

It looks exactly the same to me. Many people think that black skin is a
warning sign. The difference is in what you believe, not in what is happening.

------
moosey
Money is power, and that power is necessary for continued scientific
development. The problem isn't that scientists came to him for that money,
it's the fact that the system is built in such a way that bad actors get to
retain power.

The problem isn't that scientists went to him for his wealth, but that he had
wealth after the first set of convictions. This should be our focus.

------
thefounder
It looks that after all he did something good with the money. If more people
would donate to science before to go to jail(or commit suicide) the world
would be a better place.

------
nautilus12
Wait a second, is the implication that anyone associated with him was also
somehow tied to his illegal sexual activities? That seems like a stretch, and
this seems like an attempt to smear anyone even remotely attached to him. Its
entirely possible and likely he gave money to scientists and they had no
further connection to him beyond that. Buzzfeed is such garbage, how is it
reaching the front page of hacker news?

~~~
msghacq
Many of these people traveled on Epstein's jets and visited his houses
repeatedly. There's a lot more here than accepting money from a sex offender
(which in itself is really awful).

------
raverbashing
> Morozov declined the offer of an introduction.

Looks like someone was able to read Epstein from afar and keep the distance.

------
wickerman
I read this entire thing and don't understand what's the issue - is it that
Epstein is trying to fund people who might give a scientific "excuse" for his
criminal behaviour or it's just "scientist took money from bad man, bad
scientist", because if it's the latter we might as well shut down NASA and the
space program since it was funded by Nazis, etc etc.

Edit: I do think that Harvard, et al singing praises to him knowing he was a
pedophile is wrong. But the article is really confusing as to what is trying
to say (and it wouldn't be the first time science and human rights abuses or
crimes are associated).

------
petschge
It is now accepted that all politicians are scumbags. So when they meet with
Epstein, fly on his jets, visit his house, party with him, it is "only" as bad
as expected. That does not rile up reads and doesn't produce clicks. So now
the media has to go over associates where the internet expects better -
scientists (and to some extend the tech crowd).

------
microcolonel
On this side, it seems to be largely related to Epstein's weird narcissistic
eugenic breeding program, where he looked (or looks, if he is alive) to
notably increase the proportion of the world population descended from
himself.

~~~
tyre
> (or looks, if he is alive)

No conspiracy theories please. We have enough assaults on truth as it is.

~~~
microcolonel
I know it sounds crazy, but so does the truth so far. You don't know what's
true, I don't know what's true, none of us do.

When the most important prisoner of the century so far suffers an untimely
death in a facility which hasn't had a successful suicide for forty years,
after a cascade of serious institutional failures, and that prisoner has had
continuous access to extremely gifted scientists and medical practitioners for
decades...

I think it's likely that he's dead, but the alternatives are within the realm
of reality. It may be a conspiracy theory, but you know... _sometimes people
conspire don 't they?_

People theorize about all sorts of other things on this platform; things far
more unimaginable than this.

