Which scientists attended Epstein-funded events and how have they responded to the New York Times reporting?
Executive summary
The newly released Justice Department files and companion reporting by The New York Times, The Guardian and other outlets show that a range of prominent scientists, technologists and medical figures attended Epstein-funded dinners, conferences or accepted his money; public responses have ranged from apologies framed as naiveté about vetting to categorical denials of wrongdoing and, in some cases, institutional resignations or leaves [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. The documentary trail is extensive but uneven: emails and photos appear in the trove, while the government and some outlets caution that not everything in the release is definitive and some material may be redacted or problematic [6] [7].
1. Who in the scientific and tech worlds appears in the files — a catalog, not a charge
Documents and contemporaneous reporting show that leading scientists and science-adjacent technologists appear in Epstein’s circle: biologist George Church is on record as having met and accepted funding from Epstein’s donations to his lab and the MIT Media Lab (reported apology and prior funding) [3] [2]; cognitive scientist Joscha Bach and others were affiliated with Epstein-funded programs through joint appointments and lab channels [2]; broader tech-science figures — including Sergey Brin and other Silicon Valley leaders who attend science-focused salons and dinners — are documented in emails and photo lists tied to Epstein events such as a 2011 billionaire dinner and a 2003 TED-area contact [8] [1] [9]. Reporting also ties Epstein to Harvard contacts and conferences that drew faculty and administrators, reflecting his reach into elite academic institutions [5] [2].
2. How scientists described their behavior — apologies framed as “nerd tunnel vision” and vetting failures
Several scientists have publicly characterized these contacts as mistakes rooted in disciplinary focus or institutional failures rather than endorsement of Epstein’s conduct: George Church apologized, invoking what he called “nerd tunnel vision” and saying meetings were about scientific exchange and that vetting is the development office’s responsibility, while acknowledging he accepted donations [3]. That line — that scientists focused on research topics and let institutional fundraising offices handle donors — recurs in coverage as an account of why intellectuals sat at the same tables as Epstein [2] [3].
3. Medical voices and embarrassment: Peter Attia’s immediate contrition
Physician and public-health commentator Peter Attia, whose email exchanges with Epstein surfaced in the files, issued a statement expressing shame and said he had been “horrified” by reporting tied to the releases while attempting to contextualize ambiguous email subject lines as juvenile rather than sinister; his statements and media fallout prompted canceled programming and internal reviews at outlets where he contributes [4] [10].
4. Institutional consequences: resignations, leaves and scrutiny of university practices
The revelations have produced institutional fallout: MIT’s earlier scandal over concealed Epstein donations led to resignations in 2019 and remains a touchstone for current scrutiny [2] [9], and Harvard figures later acknowledged missteps — with former president Larry Summers stepping away from roles after contacts re-emerged [5] [11]. Universities now face specific criticism for failing to vet donors and for continued solicitation of Epstein even after criminal convictions [5] [6].
5. Denials, limits and contested evidence in the public record
Not everyone named has conceded substantive contact: some prominent figures — including certain tech leaders — have said meetings were limited or social, and statements from representatives emphasize group or charity settings rather than private interactions [7] [11]. The Department of Justice files are vast but messy; officials and the White House have warned that the trove may include inauthentic material or items submitted without verification, complicating conclusions drawn from a raw dump [7] [6].
6. What the New York Times reporting specifically prompted in responses
The New York Times’ aggregation of the newly released documents highlighted emails, jet logs and photographs and noted Epstein’s outreach to scientists about eugenics and related projects; that reporting catalyzed apologies and defensive statements from scientists and institutions who were implicated, prompted media organizations to reconsider programming, and accelerated calls for institutional reckonings at universities that received Epstein funds [2] [4] [5]. At the same time, some named figures and their spokespeople pushed back with denials or context emphasizing limited contact [7] [11].