5 ms·

Now, I don't know all of the story behind this situation - so pardon me if I come off as ignorant. Why would anybody give a single damn about where the money i

Now, I don't know all of the story behind this situation - so pardon me if I come off as ignorant. Why would anybody give a single damn about where the money is coming from if it's helping achieve a goal that could benefit scientific advancement? There's too much income inequality, funding problems, etc. etc. causing problems all over the US to simply ignore the amount of money that could potentially benefit people around the world depending on the discoveries that could be made. Now, I'm not saying that the things Epstein did weren't absolutely morally and ethically bankrupt. Why can't the people/companies receiving the money simply make a public statement "we are taking this money for the greater good because we know it will help us achieve 'X', we do not, cannot, and will never support Epstein in any way other than accepting donations".

msghacq 7y ago
Epstein cited his relationships with these schools (built through fundraising) repeatedly both to intimidate his victims into silence and convince authorities to let him go. This wasn't a case of him sending a check and walking away, he was extracting a lot of value for his predatory operation from these institutions.
sp332 7y ago
That's not really what happened at MIT. He got personal letters of thanks from the president and was invited to hang around the AI lab. The article gets into this at the bottom, about reputation laundering. Epstein gets to call himself a tech donor, hangs out in cool places, starts to look like a nice, respectable guy while he's still carrying out his freaky eugenics project.
- misterprime 7y ago
  >freaky eugenics project I thought I was up to speed on Epstein, but this is news to me.
  - msghacq 7y ago
    https://nypost.com/2019/07/31/jeffrey-epstein-wanted-to-turn-new-mexico-ranch-into-a-baby-making-factory/ https://nypost.com/2019/07/31/jeffrey-epstein-wanted-to-turn...
  - sp332 7y ago
    Not sure exactly how widely known this was but Epstein started telling people about it in the early 2000's according to https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-... Seems like he brought it up to investors and scientists for at least 5 years.
  - AndrewBissell 7y ago
    In addition to the "seed the human race with his DNA" project (largely set up at his New Mexico ranch which the FBI bizarrely still has not raided for evidence), he was also plugged into the world of transhumanism (he wanted to cryogenically freeze his brain and penis) and AI (strong connections to both Marvin Minsky and OpenCog).
prolepunk 7y ago
You answer your own question. Making any kind of public statement doesn't matter if an organization takes money from a monster. What kind of science is produced by this money? In the past few weeks we've seen the consequence of that -- many women were pushed out of the field, because the behavior that was enabled by accepting the money. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
rayiner 7y ago
If you stare into the abyss it stares into you. Here, Epstein didn’t just make anonymous donations. He bought access and legitimacy with his donations. Institutions taking his money gave him reputation credits in return. That, in turn, not only reduced his disincentive to engage in such behavior, but undoubtedly enabled him to abuse more woman than if he had been a social outcast. Beyond that, at the end of the day, a non-exclusionary ecosystem is good for science in the long run. Science runs on human capital. If people like Epstein are treated as respected donors, instead of pariahs, that definitely created an exclusionary culture.
michaelt 7y ago
In a way, yes. The problem is, as you start donating more money to almost any organisation they start doing things that straddle the boundary of allowing you to audit that your money is being used efficiently, making use of your expertise, stroking your ego, polishing your public image, and soliciting further donations. For example, inviting you to receptions with free drinks, providing chances for you to meet the people you're supporting, giving you tours where your guide tells everyone you visit how very powerful important you are, asking your opinion on proposed initiatives and so on - right up to naming buildings after you. Needless to say, cashing a check you get from Jeffrey Epstein in the mail might be OK - but if you've built the Jeffrey Epstein Building you've got a PR problem right now.
philjohn 7y ago
It's an ethical conundrum for sure, see also the "research" done at Unit 731 which has formed a core part of several branches of emergency medicine.
tptacek 7y ago
An under-appreciated aspect of the Epstein fiasco is what his actual M.O. was. People focus on the benefits Epstein accrued directly from MIT, and ignore the indirect benefits, which were probably much more powerful. To wit: Ronan Farrow has emails in which Epstein arranged donation from other powerful people, including Bill Gates; essentially, Epstein's donations "bought" him the ability to act as MIT's agent among other wealthy philanthropists. His donations may have been pro-forma anonymous, but were in reality the opposite of that precisely among the people whose influence he cared most about.

msghacq 7y ago

Epstein cited his relationships with these schools (built through fundraising) repeatedly both to intimidate his victims into silence and convince authorities to let him go. This wasn't a case of him sending a check and walking away, he was extracting a lot of value for his predatory operation from these institutions.

sp332 7y ago

That's not really what happened at MIT. He got personal letters of thanks from the president and was invited to hang around the AI lab. The article gets into this at the bottom, about reputation laundering. Epstein gets to call himself a tech donor, hangs out in cool places, starts to look like a nice, respectable guy while he's still carrying out his freaky eugenics project.

misterprime 7y ago
>freaky eugenics project I thought I was up to speed on Epstein, but this is news to me.
- msghacq 7y ago
  https://nypost.com/2019/07/31/jeffrey-epstein-wanted-to-turn-new-mexico-ranch-into-a-baby-making-factory/ https://nypost.com/2019/07/31/jeffrey-epstein-wanted-to-turn...
- sp332 7y ago
  Not sure exactly how widely known this was but Epstein started telling people about it in the early 2000's according to https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-... Seems like he brought it up to investors and scientists for at least 5 years.
- AndrewBissell 7y ago
  In addition to the "seed the human race with his DNA" project (largely set up at his New Mexico ranch which the FBI bizarrely still has not raided for evidence), he was also plugged into the world of transhumanism (he wanted to cryogenically freeze his brain and penis) and AI (strong connections to both Marvin Minsky and OpenCog).

prolepunk 7y ago

You answer your own question. Making any kind of public statement doesn't matter if an organization takes money from a monster. What kind of science is produced by this money? In the past few weeks we've seen the consequence of that -- many women were pushed out of the field, because the behavior that was enabled by accepting the money. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

rayiner 7y ago

If you stare into the abyss it stares into you. Here, Epstein didn’t just make anonymous donations. He bought access and legitimacy with his donations. Institutions taking his money gave him reputation credits in return. That, in turn, not only reduced his disincentive to engage in such behavior, but undoubtedly enabled him to abuse more woman than if he had been a social outcast. Beyond that, at the end of the day, a non-exclusionary ecosystem is good for science in the long run. Science runs on human capital. If people like Epstein are treated as respected donors, instead of pariahs, that definitely created an exclusionary culture.

michaelt 7y ago

In a way, yes. The problem is, as you start donating more money to almost any organisation they start doing things that straddle the boundary of allowing you to audit that your money is being used efficiently, making use of your expertise, stroking your ego, polishing your public image, and soliciting further donations. For example, inviting you to receptions with free drinks, providing chances for you to meet the people you're supporting, giving you tours where your guide tells everyone you visit how very powerful important you are, asking your opinion on proposed initiatives and so on - right up to naming buildings after you. Needless to say, cashing a check you get from Jeffrey Epstein in the mail might be OK - but if you've built the Jeffrey Epstein Building you've got a PR problem right now.

philjohn 7y ago

It's an ethical conundrum for sure, see also the "research" done at Unit 731 which has formed a core part of several branches of emergency medicine.

tptacek 7y ago

An under-appreciated aspect of the Epstein fiasco is what his actual M.O. was. People focus on the benefits Epstein accrued directly from MIT, and ignore the indirect benefits, which were probably much more powerful. To wit: Ronan Farrow has emails in which Epstein arranged donation from other powerful people, including Bill Gates; essentially, Epstein's donations "bought" him the ability to act as MIT's agent among other wealthy philanthropists. His donations may have been pro-forma anonymous, but were in reality the opposite of that precisely among the people whose influence he cared most about.