With academics and their institutions being discovered in the Epstein files, many are wondering how someone like Brian Greene could be in Epstein’s orbit.

A February 2026 blog post from Columbia Mathematics Professor Peter Woit questioned: if Harvard faculty and administrators have faced scrutiny for relationships with Jeffrey Epstein, are Columbia’s involved too? Journalists have revealed certain Columbia faculty members in this network, including Brian Greene, well-known pop physician and Frontiers of Science Professor. His name, among others, is one of many at Columbia in the same intellectual and philanthropic networks frequented by Epstein, even after his 2008 conviction as a sex offender. While there is no known evidence that these figures were implicated in Epstein’s crimes, this revelation hints at deeper institutional rot, raising questions about institutional oversight and why Epstein specifically cultivated scientists. 

​Woit’s post responded to mathematician Scott Aaronson, who found his own name in the Epstein files despite never meeting him. Contacted post-2008 via an intermediary, Aaronson declined further contact after learning of the conviction. His mother warned: “be careful not to get sucked up in the slime-machine going on here! Since you don’t care that much about money, they can’t buy you at least.” 

This comment demonstrates the root of why Epstein sought scientists. His goals weren’t to absorb their scientific knowledge. Rather than their expertise, he sought the authority that expertise confers, especially from privileged institutions like Columbia and Harvard. By supporting their research and scientific endeavors with his wealth, Epstein could in effect mooch off the branding of Columbia in the public eye.

The “slime-machine” values celebrity over the of pillars scientific virtue. Obsession with notoriety explains why Epstein sought figures like Brian Greene, as their fame provided legitimacy within elite spaces. In return, these scientists gained access to elite circles, fancy dinners, and opportunities to further fund their research.

​A 2019 Guardian article confirms Epstein specifically targeted scientists, inviting them to elite dinners and his island. Epstein’s rise to wealth and notoriety relied on networking. He cultivated circles that validated his status, despite reports of wrongdoing. This networking is how Woit himself appeared in emails, although he never met Epstein. Documents confirm Epstein would offer dinner parties to star scientists with promises of funding. DOJ files reveal Brian Greene met with Epstein, although he denies any wrongdoing, among other prominent scientists at elite universities. Few were involved in Epstein’s crimes, but many failed in due diligence, ignoring press reports about a convicted sex offender turned philanthropist, which could have prevented them from taking dirty money.

​Considering some scientists, such as psychologist Steven Pinker, thought of him as a “dilettante and a smartass”, it is important to further analyze the mechanism through which Epstein gained power through these scientists. The question is answered most simply by following the money, a necessary component of scientific research. For centuries, scientists have relied on elite patrons, public institutions, philanthropical foundations, and industry for funding. Many accepted Epstein’s money after his 2008 conviction, either failing to vet him of willfully ignoring his criminality. In return, he gained public credibility and status from scientific celebrity during a time of best-selling pop science books, viral TED talks, and scientists being featured in publications such as Vanity Fair. When so easily corrupted, this air of celebrity poses a threat to science itself and how it is valued in the public eye. 

Through this “slime-machine” which sought status and wealth, Epstein maintained contact with over 30 scientists, donated millions to academic institutions, hosted scientists on his island, and held private office space at Harvard. The positioning of certain scientists in this network casts doubt on their supposed objectivity, which Science and Technology Studies scholar Theodore Porter posits as “personal restraint… following the rules. In most contexts, objectivity means fairness and impartiality”. How impartial can findings be if funded by a figure notorious for corruption?

​With elite money corrupting science, we must ask if this distorts which questions are asked, and even the findings themselves. We should care about Epstein’s money in science as it asks important questions regarding responsible scientific practice and influence, with the stakes being science’s own integrity. Writing in the Nation, a baffled Katha Pollit captures the dismay: “Science! The very temple of the pursuit of truth. Call me insufficiently jaded, but am I wrong to expect more of those we rely on to combat all of the nonsense swirling around us?” Scientific celebrity, as opposed to a more Boylean modesty, creates vulnerabilities which undermine the objectivity science claims. When institutions like Columbia and Harvard accept money from a convicted predator, their failure to thoroughly question wealthy patrons of science compromises their scientific practice as a credible pursuit devoted to the ‘truth’.

Header via Bwog Archives