18 | New Scientist | 21 September 2019profile, as long as the money
was taken anonymously. Ito did
indeed ensure that the money
he accepted from Epstein was
kept anonymous.
Such debates over Epstein’s
funding of science have prompted
the question: are there good
enough systems to allow people
to collectively decide which
sources of research funding
they are happy with?
This goes far beyond Epstein.
The tobacco industry once funded
a lot of health research with the
purpose of improving its own
reputation. Today, Facebook funds
research into the effects of social
media on democratic processes,
despite being seen by some as a
platform from which democracy
can be manipulated. There are
plenty of other examples of
research institutions taking
money from sources thatTHE revelation that financier
Jeffrey Epstein was funding
high-profile scientific research
even after he had been convicted
of sex offences has rekindled a
debate about who funds science.
How do we decide what sorts of
donation are ethical, and to what
extent does it matter where
research funds come from?
The scandal over Epstein’s
science funding came to a head
on 7 September, a month after
Epstein died by suicide. It was
then that Joichi Ito, director of
the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT) Media
Lab, resigned. He admitted to
accepting some $1.7 million
from Epstein, both for the Media
Lab, an interdisciplinary research
group, and his own investment
funds. Epstein had been convicted
in 2008 of sexually abusing girls
as young as 14.
Ito’s acceptance of Epstein’s
money wasn’t a crime, but this is
an ethical grey area. Articles in the
media, and discussions between
scientists at MIT, have suggested
that Ito’s actions were wrongbecause they burnished Epstein’s
public reputation by associating
him with respected scientists.
That view isn’t universal. In an
essay last week, Lawrence Lessig
at Harvard University argued that
taking Epstein’s money could
have helped MIT’s research
without ameliorating Epstein’sGovernment-backed
organisations like the US Office
of Research Integrity, and the UK
equivalent, offer guidelines on
how to avoid conflicts of interest
and conduct research responsibly.
These touch on funding, often
stipulating, for example, that
funders shouldn’t be able to
influence what results get
reported. But funding decisions
aren’t overseen by independent
bodies. At universities, they are
usually made by a funding office.
When science is primarily
funded by the public, measures
like this may be sufficient. But
Stilgoe says that during the
20th century, sources of funding
have diversified, with the military
and others giving more moneyDirty money?
In the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein science-funding scandal, we need to talk
about where money for research comes from, writes Chelsea WhyteMIT’s Media Lab combines
research from technology,
media, science and artsome people think are improper
(see “Money trouble”, right).
It is an apt time to ask these
questions, because research
institutions are facing a fragile
funding environment. “Until
the financial crisis, science had
benefited from pretty steady
annual growth rates. Now,
government funding has
started to decline or plateau,”
says Jack Stilgoe at University
College London. Research
institutions really need cash
and so “they are more likely
to get themselves in this kind
of trouble”, says Stilgoe.Research ethicsNEMANJA TRIFUNOVIC/ WWW.MEDIA.MIT.EDUNews Insight
$1.7m
Amount of money that
Joichi Ito says he accepted
from Jeffrey EpsteinJoichi Ito (left) accepted money from
sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (right)ALAMY; SHUTTERSTOCK