A lot of attention has been focused on the hundreds of scientists who are mentioned in the files of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’, especially those who became part of his circle of friends. Many of those who are now compromised were well-known and well-funded so why did they not say no? Science magazine has an article about three who were approached and declined. It is interesting to see the extent Epstein would go to recruit scientists who became well-known, either because they gave a TED talk or appeared on TV or wrote popular books. He would first have an intermediary approach them, sometimes repeatedly, and then follow up with personal appeals.
When first approached, cancer researcher David Agus went online and learned something about him, and some of his colleagues also warned him to keep his distance. But he was repeatedly asked by Epstein over a period of seven years and kept putting him off by saying that he was too busy. He said that he did not want to outright say no because of fears of upsetting someone who seemed powerful.
When computer scientist Scott Aaronson was approached (at the age of 29) by Epstein who offered to fund his research, he thought that was a little odd, so he asked his mother for advice. She did a bit of digging and advised him to keep the hell away from Epstein, saying “Be careful not to get sucked up in the slime-machine going on here… Since you don’t care that much about money, they can’t buy you.” He listened to his mother and was saved.
Physicist Sean Carroll’s experience was also interesting. It began at a dinner party when he was at CalTech, because it seemed to have been set up by a friend/colleague of Carroll for the purpose of recruiting Carroll.
His host interrupted the meal to call Epstein and then handed Carroll the phone.
“It was a 2-minute conversation, and frankly, it didn’t make much of an impression on me at the time,” Carroll says. “As best I can remember, we talked about the Big Bang and dark energy and things like that.”
But Carroll says when he told others about the call, including his wife, science writer Jennifer Ouellette, we “were rolling our eyes.” In a recent blog post, Carroll said Epstein came off as a “standard, fast-talking charlatan who trotted out lots of big words with no real understanding [of them].”
A few months later, Carroll received an email invitation to a scientific conference at Epstein’s home on his private Caribbean island. “It was billed as a workshop of scientists from different fields, something that I usually find appealing, and it sounded like fun,” he says. But he declined after learning a bit more about the arrangements.
“Jennifer was also invited,” Carroll recounts. “But when we asked if she would be a participant, they said ‘she could go shopping with the other wives.’ And we were repulsed by that sexist attitude.”
“I had no idea through any of this that he was a convicted sex offender,” Carroll adds. “That would have made it a much easier decision for me. But in 2010 he was not a famous person. If I had tried really hard, I could have found out about [his criminal record], but the thought that I would really have to try hard never entered my mind.”
Carroll says the lure of possible funding wasn’t an issue for him. “I’m not desperate for money,” he says. “And besides, at the end of your life, who you are is the accumulation of the things you did. It’s not just how much money you got.”
Carroll’s last point about money is well taken but I think that while most scientists would share that view, there will be some who are envious of the lifestyle of the wealthy (flying on private jets, hobnobbing with celebrities, going to elaborate parties) that they succumb to the temptations dangled in front of them by manipulators like Epstein.
Like Carroll, scientists do not reflexively question the bona fides of people who approach them and do deep research into them. And this, as Aaronson says, can make them easy marks for devious people.
Aaronson isn’t surprised that some colleagues, including Lloyd, fell into Epstein’s orbit.
“Academics tend to have this way of interacting with people that works really well when there is mutual good faith,” Aaronson says. “But it breaks down when that doesn’t exist. And I think a lot of academics were just not prepared to deal with someone like him.”
It is not pleasant to go through life being suspicious of people who approach you, checking to see if they have some kind of nefarious agenda. But that is perhaps now necessary and we should bear in mind the old saying to “beware of Greeks bearing gifts”.
i need to hear this kind of thing, to offset the increasing sense that everyone has a price, that we can never be freed from the evils associated with greed and power.
I want to phrase this carefully, but… in a twisted way, it’s a compliment that Epstein tried to add so many scientists to his collection of public figures. He perceived them as a source of legitimacy, which means he saw value in their work.
Of course, the scientists who fell for his flattery have to carry that stain on their record, even if they didn’t do anything more unseemly than attend a conference he paid for. Good on the principled ones who smelled a rat and refused to associate with him. Skepticism isn’t just for scientific experiments, it’s a habit that serves you well in every aspect of life.
Can we talk this person into running for office? He may lack political experience, but (looks at White House) that is no longer a requirement. Bonus points if he primaries one of the old corrupt Dems that accept $$$ from evil corporations.
OT.
I forgot a name in the previous thread. The lying senator I mentioned at comment 5 is Lindsey Graham.
I am glad Science magazine is bringing up the matter, instead of pretending it has no relevance for research.
OT
FYI Jon Stewart at The Daily Show just put a 28 minute video onto Youtube.
I think that, for all the scientists who threw in with Epstein, it wasn’t the lure of grant money for their research. It was, as Mano said, envy of riches, inflated sense of power and importance, luxuries, and every indulgence.
Because, although it takes some money to conduct research, you can indeed get your research done without floods of it. It’s your ideas and work on them, your guidance of your students, and the work and the ideas of your students, that produce results. If you all have to work a little harder because you can’t afford the latest in luxury science equipment, you cheerfully do that and get on with your work.
Ernest Rutherford discovered the nucleus with, as his students said, “string and duct tape”. It’s true: he was an unknown professor at the time, at McGill, and he didn’t have a lot of money to spend on fancy equipment. So, they made clever improvisations, they made it work with what they had, and how did that turn out? (Nobel prize and being hired by Cambridge, that’s how.)
Your work matters, and if you can’t do it without the latest in luxury expense, then you care more about self-aggrandizement than accomplishing your work.
Here’s the Bluesky thread that is quoted in the linked article. Among other things, it puts some names out there that I hadn’t known about:
https://bsky.app/profile/seanmcarroll.bsky.social/post/3megrret2fs2t
Owlmirror @#6,
Thanks for that Bluesky link from Carroll. I had tried to find that source of the quotes by him but failed. I think I got misdirected by the article referring to it as a blog post but Carroll’s blog had nothing about it.
Thanks also for reminding me about Al Seckel. I had blogged about him back in 2019 in a post titled How to con scientists and skeptics where I linked to the Oppenheimer article you provide in your post.