Which Harvard researchers beyond Martin Nowak received Epstein‑linked funds and what projects did those grants support?

1. The university tally and the headline program: what Harvard acknowledged

Harvard’s internal report, released under President Bacow, concluded the university received about $9.1 million from Epstein between 1998 and 2008 and identified the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics (PED) as the major single beneficiary—public reporting estimates at least $6.5 million was earmarked for PED and for Nowak’s work, which helped launch and sustain the program ^{[1] [6]}.

2. Stephen Kosslyn: an early, documented faculty recipient

Harvard reporting and subsequent magazine coverage name former psychology chair Stephen Kosslyn as a faculty member who accepted roughly $200,000 in research support connected to Epstein and who helped sponsor Epstein’s visiting‑fellow affiliation at Harvard in 2005, a relationship that later became a focal point of criticism and which preceded Kosslyn’s departure from the faculty in 2011 ^[2].

3. Anne Harrington: a humanities scholar on Epstein’s grant list

Local reporting in Boston detailed that Epstein, through his nonprofits, made grants to individual researchers beyond the sciences, including a 1999 grant to Anne Harrington, a historian of science and undergraduate house master, showing Epstein’s giving reached humanities projects as well as laboratory‑style research ^[3].

4. Joscha Bach and indirect post‑conviction channels

Investigations have documented arrangements in which Epstein’s money flowed indirectly after his 2008 conviction: cognitive scientist Joscha Bach, closely associated with Nowak, was paid while affiliated with MIT’s Media Lab and his stipend and collaboration routes tied back to donors introduced by Epstein, illustrating how support for Harvard‑affiliated work sometimes passed through non‑Harvard vehicles rather than appearing as direct university gifts ^{[5] [4]}.

5. Disputed totals and contested narratives: the $30 million claim and donor intermediaries

Some outlets have reported far larger sums—one piece cites a $30‑million pledge to support Nowak—yet Harvard’s official accounting and contemporaneous sources point to $6.5 million explicitly for PED and $9.1 million to the university overall, and the university’s review describes scenarios in which other donors (for example, an alumnus identified only as Mr. Black) gave funds that were facilitated by Epstein even when Harvard records do not show direct gifts from Epstein after 2008, underscoring disagreement about scope and whether certain millions were pledged, spent, or routed through intermediaries ^{[6] [1] [7] [8]}.

6. What the sources agree on—and what they do not

Across Harvard’s report, Harvard Magazine, WBUR and follow‑up investigative pieces, the agreed facts are that Epstein funded PED substantially, that other faculty (Kosslyn, Harrington) received grants linked to Epstein’s nonprofits, and that Epstein continued to introduce donors and facilitate gifts even after his conviction; where sources diverge is on the exact dollar totals attributed to specific projects and whether some post‑2008 support for Harvard‑affiliated researchers was direct or routed through third parties like the MIT Media Lab ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}.

7. Implicit agendas and institutional limits of the record

Harvard’s official report sought to limit institutional liability and to draw a bright line after 2008, while outside journalists and watchdogs have pushed broader narratives of continued influence—readers should note that university disclosures, contemporaneous donor statements, and leaked files each carry incentives: the university to contain reputational damage, donors to obscure origins, and journalists to amplify new revelations; the public record still lacks a definitive ledger tying every dollar to a named project or researcher ^{[1] [5] [6]}.