Mr. Epstein was not only a world-class child abuser, he was a big fan of theoretical high-energy physics and of theoretical physicists. Some of my colleagues, unfortunately, got to know him. A number who were famous and/or had John Brockman as a book agent were even invited to a physics conference on Epstein’s private island, well before he was first arrested. This was no secret; as I recall, a lot of us heard about the existence of this conference/trip, but we hadn’t heard Epstein’s name before and didn’t pay much attention (ho hum, just another weird billionaire).
Personally, I feel quite lucky. The Brockman agency rejected the proposal for my recent book without comment (thank you!); and my research is mostly considered unimportant by the Brian Greenes of the world. As a result, I was not invited to Epstein’s island, never made his acquaintance, and blissfully avoided the entire affair. Clearly there are some benefits to being considered ordinary. And so — I’m sorry/not-sorry to say — I can’t tell you much about Epstein at all, or about how certain physicists did and did not interact with him. Regarding my colleagues who did get to know him, I can’t speak for them, since I wasn’t there, and I don’t know to what extent Epstein hid his immoral activities when they were around. It’s up to them to tell their own stories if they feel the need to do so (and I hope a couple of them do, just to clear the air.) Personally I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt — probably some literally didn’t know what was up until Epstein’s arrest in 2008, while perhaps others felt there wasn’t much they could do about Epstein’s actions on his own private island. I imagine they are deeply embarrassed to have been caught in this horrible man’s ugly web.
Fans of physics come in all shapes and sizes, and some have large wallets, large egos, and/or large ambitions. Among the wealthy supporters, we can count Alfred Nobel himself; billionaires sit on important scientific institute and university boards, and the more recent Breakthrough Prizes were funded by deep pockets. The extreme wealthy have outsized influence in our country and in our world, and one could argue that their influence in 2025 was not for the better. Usually, though, the influence in physics and related fields tends to be relatively benign, funding postdoctoral researchers and graduate students who deeply want to do science but also need to eat. That said, sometimes donors fund non-essential fields at the expense of critical ones, or favor theoretical research over the gathering of crucial experimental data, or push money on famous rich organizations when there are poor ones that are equally deserving and far more needy.
When gazillionaires, on their own initiative, come calling on non-profit organizations, whether they be community centers, arts organizations, or universities, they pose a problem. On the one hand, it is the job of anyone in a non-profit organization to help raise money — fail to do that, and your organization will close. When a single person offers to permanently change the future of your program, you would be derelict in your duty if you did not consider that offer. On the other hand, donors who might have ethical or criminal problems could drag the organization’s name through the mud. Worse, they might be able to force the organization itself to do something ethically questionable or even illegal.
There is a clear lesson for young academics and other up-and-coming non-profit actors in the Epstein affair: the more money potentially offered to our organizations, the more carefully we must tread. Money is power; power corrupts; and every pursuit of dollars, even for the best causes, risks infection. We can’t be large-scale non-profit fundraisers without doing serious and thorough background checks of the biggest donors; we have to question motives, and we can’t look the other way when something seems amiss. Those of us with clear hearts and honest pursuits tend to assume the best in other people. But we have to beware of those hoping to bolster their reputations, or clean their consciences, by giving away “generously” what they never deserved to have.
5 Responses
Welcome back, Matt, unfortunately ‘power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ (Lord Acton). I hope you’ll soon pick up again the discussion you left off on your blog. (in addition to Nobel and Solvay as positive examples we can remember Carlsberg the beer brand associated with Niels Bohr)
It’s good to see you posting again, Dr. Strassler. Even if mostly by luck, you are extremely fortunate not to have been involved with this meeting. From the most recent batch of email releases, there’s an excellent change Epstein was a vital part of Vladimir Putin’s long-term strategy of collecting “kompromat” on important or potentially important US and European personalities. This generally boils down to getting men involved in sexually compromising activities. Russia, especially under Putin, has had a long and sordid history of creating situations for collecting kompromat, with the sullying of leaders in Poland decades ago when they rebelled being one example. They also excel at poisons and maskirovka, that is, clever military deceptions. Another dark thread in which the US is as guilty as anyone (can we all say Taliban together?) is taking over a religion and perverting it for your own specific goals. Putin has been very active in that domain in the US for decades; you can find radio channels in the US that are nominally “religious,” yet come over as blatant ads for Putin.
Given the now-revealed Putin connection, there’s a very good chance that if you had gone to that meeting, you would have been positioned, enticed, recorded, and archived in Moscow, regardless of your actual sexual habits or importance to Russia at that time. You may well find your colleagues who attended strangely reluctant to talk about their time there, even ones you might not think of as good candidates for kompromat. Again, the Russians have a long history of this stuff, and the thousand or so emails exchanged between this fellow and Putin are a very bad sign.
And yet, yes, billionaire have certainly also contributed in positive ways to physics. In addition to Alfred Nobel, I would suggest the Belgian industrialist Ernest Solvay as one of the most positive examples of a positive contribution to theoretical physics.
Epstein’s original sponsor was the American owner of Victoria’s Secret. Ghislaine Maxwell’s father had Russian connections, but he was given a state funeral in Israel, so, you do the math…
As Balzac noted:”Behind every great fortune there is a crime”. Also, I can think of many horrific actions of the US and other physics-supporting governments . Wow! You propose diving into a massive rabbit hole that most researchers are ill-equiped to navigate. Many people and organizations give money away to help them feel that they contributed some value to the human race. Money is green.
Well said!!