Which scientists served on Jeffrey Epstein–funded advisory boards or received grants from his foundations?

1. “The visible roster”: scientists and programs repeatedly named in reporting

Reporting and foundation summaries identify several high‑profile recipients and program relationships. Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, directed by Martin Nowak, is repeatedly linked to a large promised pledge (reported as $30 million) and to Epstein’s involvement on Harvard advisory structures ^{[1] [6]}. George Church is named as having received foundation funding from 2005–2007 for “cutting edge science & education” ^[1]. Media inventories compiled in 2019 also list beneficiaries across neuroscience, AI and theoretical biology — including conferences and projects connected to figures in those fields ^{[2] [3]}.

2. “Advisory access”: Epstein’s roles on university committees and initiatives

Epstein is documented as sitting on or engaging with institutional advisory bodies and initiatives that brought scientists into contact with him. Sources report Epstein served as a representative on Harvard’s Mind, Brain and Behavior Advisory Committee and was involved with programs at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, the Santa Fe Institute, and other academic initiatives — structures that connected him to established researchers ^{[1] [7]}. These affiliations enabled donor access to prominent academics even when formal grant records are thin or opaque ^[7].

3. “Incomplete paper trails”: why a full list is elusive

Investigations show Epstein’s charities often avoided standard disclosure. The Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation’s public filings are limited; one Form 990 is widely cited but lacks detailed grant listings, and some press releases from Epstein’s organizations claim donations that recipient institutions say they never received ^{[4] [5] [8]}. Journalists and researchers therefore compiled names from emails, press releases, event attendance lists and direct reporting rather than a single transparent ledger, which means available sources do not provide a complete roster of all scientists who received funding or advisory appointments ^{[2] [3]}.

4. “Named correspondents in newly released emails”: what the 2025 files added

The late‑2025 release of tens of thousands of Epstein‑linked documents by the House Oversight Committee renewed scrutiny of his scientific ties; outlets described email threads with prominent academics such as Lawrence Summers, Lawrence Krauss and others corresponding with Epstein well after prior convictions ^{[9] [10]}. These email releases reaffirm that Epstein communicated with many senior researchers, but the documents mostly show correspondence and engagement rather than a neat ledger of paid grants or formal advisory appointments ^{[9] [10] [11]}.

5. “Disputed claims and institutional responses”

Multiple institutions and individual scientists have pushed back on specific allegations or on the characterization of donations. News coverage documents examples where charities listed in Epstein materials said they had no record of receiving his gifts, and some scientists have disputed the implications of their communications with Epstein ^{[8] [10]}. The New York Times and investigative outlets have reported that Epstein’s public portrayal of his philanthropy sometimes overstated or mischaracterized gifts, and that the foundation’s limited tax filings make verification difficult ^{[4] [5]}.

6. “What reporting can and cannot say now”

Available sources provide a partial but corroborated list of prominent scientists and programs linked to Epstein funding or advisory interactions (Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics; George Church; various AI and neuroscience figures and gatherings), and newly released emails expanded evidence of correspondence with named academics ^{[1] [2] [9]}. However, because Epstein’s foundations often lacked full public disclosures and because some named recipients deny receipt of funds, available sources do not allow a definitive, exhaustive list of all scientists who served on Epstein‑funded advisory boards or who received grants ^{[4] [8]}.

If you want, I can pull together a consolidated, sourced list of every named scientist and institution mentioned across these documents and articles (with the exact citation for each mention) so you can review who is directly tied to grants, who appears in email correspondence, and which claims are disputed in the record.