What specific research projects or labs at universities were funded by Epstein-linked grants?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Jeffrey Epstein’s foundations funded discrete university projects and labs spanning evolutionary dynamics, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and origin‑of‑life work — most prominently Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, MIT’s Media Lab affiliations, and AI efforts such as OpenCog — but the full map is incomplete because foundation filings and payments were partial, routed, or later contested [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and released records show specific projects and investigators tied to Epstein money, even as universities and researchers differ on whether funds were direct, pledged, partially paid, or re‑directed [4] [5].
1. Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics — the centerpiece
Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics (PED), directed by Martin Nowak, was the single largest identifiable beneficiary: Epstein’s VI Foundation pledged a $30 million gift to launch the program (only part paid), and more than two‑thirds of reported Harvard donations — about $6.5 million — flowed to Nowak and PED activities, including work that used mathematics to study evolution, viruses and cancers [1] [4] [5].
2. MIT Media Lab and associated fellows
MIT accepted hundreds of thousands in Epstein‑linked funding over years — the institution acknowledged roughly $800,000 accepted over two decades — and money connected to Epstein flowed through the Media Lab to support fellows and projects, with at least some funds linked to the appointments of researchers such as Joscha Bach (whose MIT affiliation was reported to have received Epstein‑related support) and to investments under then‑director Joi Ito [6] [7] [8].
3. OpenCog and AI/robotics projects (domestic and overseas)
Epstein’s VI Foundation publicly touted support for AI and robotics work, including sponsorship or promotion of OpenCog — an open‑source artificial‑general‑intelligence project led by Ben Goertzel — and funding for AI teams overseas (Hong Kong projects appear in foundation releases), indicating targeted grants to AI labs beyond U.S. campuses [2] [3].
4. Origins Project, medical studies and smaller university grants
Other concrete links include Enhanced Education foundation payments to Arizona State University’s Origins Project and reported payments to specific medical research efforts: public records and press releases tied Epstein foundations to ASU’s Origins Project and touted support for cancer research at the Icahn School of Medicine and a study by neuroscientist Mark Tramo on music and premature babies’ heart rates [3] [9].
5. Institutes, conferences and informal research networks
Beyond line‑item grants, Epstein funded or convened conferences and advisory ties that bolstered research programs at places such as the Santa Fe Institute, the Institute for Advanced Study’s theoretical biology initiative, and the Mind, Brain and Behavior advisory committee at Harvard — investments that were less always direct grants to labs than payments that underwrote meetings, prestige, and access for select investigators [1] [10].
6. Scale, contested pledges and reporting limits
Public records show a mix of pledges, partial payments and opaque routing: the VI Foundation’s $30 million pledge to Harvard was not fully paid, some gifts were funneled through multiple entities, and IRS disclosures for Epstein’s Virgin Islands foundations are incomplete — all of which mean the list of “specific labs” funded is non‑exhaustive and subject to ongoing document releases and congressional records [1] [2] [3].
7. Implications, disputes and where reporting diverges
Reporting converges on several named projects (Harvard PED, MIT Media Lab connections, OpenCog, ASU Origins, select medical projects), but institutions and individual researchers have disputed the nature or directness of support — some say funds were redirected, others acknowledge payment and later returned or reallocated — and critics argue that donor influence and the prestige Epstein purchased distorted priorities in elite research settings [4] [11] [8].