Which prominent scientists received funding or gifts from Jeffrey Epstein and how much did they accept?

1. A well‑connected “science philanthropist” who gave both to institutions and individuals

Jeffrey Epstein cultivated ties to leading research institutions and individual scientists through the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation and other vehicles; institutions recorded multimillion‑dollar gifts (for example, Harvard’s $6.5 million to launch a Program for Evolutionary Dynamics and nearly $9 million in pre‑2008 donations overall) while smaller repeated sums went to centers like the Santa Fe Institute ^{[7] [1] [2] [3]}. Science reporting summarized Epstein’s role as both funder and convenor—hosting conferences, summits and private dinners that brought prominent scientists into personal contact with him ^{[7] [8]}.

2. Named prominent scientists and the record’s limits

Multiple outlets highlighted that Epstein corresponded with and supported prominent scientists—examples in recent document releases include exchanges with figures such as Lawrence Summers (emails revealed between Summers and Epstein) and physicist Lawrence Krauss, among others—yet the paperwork and newsroom accounts released to date do not uniformly convert correspondence into fixed dollar amounts per individual ^{[5] [9] [4]}. BuzzFeed, Scientific American and Wired compiled lists of researchers who had accepted support, but they also noted that some institutions could not find records of expected gifts, underscoring uneven documentation ^{[6] [4]}.

3. What amounts are documented and where they came from

Reporting cites several concrete institutional sums: Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics received $6.5 million from Epstein; Harvard as an institution received nearly $9 million before 2008 according to The Guardian and other outlets; the Santa Fe Institute recorded roughly $250,000–$275,000 in Epstein‑tied contributions ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Science magazine and Scientific American have estimated that Epstein’s total donations to scientific researchers “were unlikely to have exceeded a few tens of millions of dollars,” a ceiling rather than a precise figure ^[4].

4. Cases where individual totals are unclear or contested

Investigations and reporting show email threads, invitations and personal contacts—evidence of relationships—but in many cases the documents do not list an exact payment or gift amount to a named scientist. BuzzFeed’s 2019 review found more donations than previously acknowledged but also reported universities that could not verify certain claimed gifts; this illustrates that press lists of “who took money” can be partially corroborated, partially disputed ^[6]. The Chronicle’s November 2025 reporting catalogued deep ties revealed in inboxes but also updated items (for example, a scholar later stated she never got research money from Epstein), demonstrating contested individual claims ^[5].

5. Why totals and lists remain incomplete

The House Oversight Committee released thousands of pages of Epstein estate documents in late 2025, prompting calls to release DOJ files and further records—legislative efforts (the Epstein Files Transparency Act) aim to make more material public, which could clarify outstanding questions about individuals and amounts ^{[10] [11]}. Until fuller DOJ and estate records are published and reconciled with institutional bookkeeping, per‑scientist dollar amounts will remain partially opaque ^{[11] [10]}.

6. Competing frames: philanthropy versus reputation risk

Journalists and institutions frame Epstein as a donor who “invested in people,” and his gifts brought research convenings and resources ^[12]. Critics argue these donations consolidated prestige and created reputational risk for recipients and host institutions; Wired and The Verge documented both the practical benefits of funding and the ethical fallout after Epstein’s crimes became public ^{[8] [13]}. Reporting therefore contains two competing threads: documented financial support that advanced scientific programs, and a broader discussion about whether affiliation—whether monetary or social—was appropriate given Epstein’s conduct ^{[13] [8]}.

Limitations and next steps: available sources do not provide a comprehensive, line‑by‑line accounting of every prominent scientist and the exact dollar amount each accepted; further clarity depends on the full release of DOJ files, institutional financial records, and reconciliations noted by reporters and congressional releases ^{[10] [11] [4]}.