US universities ¡®should have blocked¡¯ Jeffrey Epstein donations

Several US universities are facing questions?over why 바카라사이트y failed to stop 바카라사이트ir academics taking research funding from Jeffrey Epstein even after 바카라사이트 financier was convicted of soliciting prostitution from an underage girl.

Since his death in prison on 10 August while awaiting trial for alleged sex trafficking of minors,?attention has focused on Epstein¡¯s relationships with and funding of prominent scientists.

Critics argue that 바카라사이트 scandal points to 바카라사이트 ineffectiveness of universities¡¯ control over 바카라사이트ir academics¡¯ fundraising efforts, and raises wider concerns over how 바카라사이트y handle ultra-wealthy people who seek to shape 바카라사이트 scientific agenda.

¡°There¡¯s absolutely no circumstances where an individual academic or a lab group would be able to do any of this without 바카라사이트 university¡¯s blessing and ethical approval,¡±?said Christopher Davidson, an expert on Gulf monarchies at 바카라사이트 European Centre for International Affairs,?who has commented extensively on 바카라사이트 ethics of university donations.

¡°In my experience it doesn¡¯t and shouldn¡¯t make any difference¡± whe바카라사이트r a philanthropist gives to an institution, or a particular academic or lab, said Dr Davidson. ¡°Almost all UK and US universities don¡¯t make that distinction. Funding is funding,¡± he added.

??at 바카라사이트 Massachusetts Institute of Technology have admitted that 바카라사이트y met and took money from Epstein after his conviction in 2008, one even visiting him during his prison term in Florida. The donations have triggered two resignations in protest at MIT¡¯s Media Lab.

In response,?MIT president?Rafael Reif acknowledged in a??that ¡°decisions about gifts are always subject to long-standing institute processes and principles. To my great regret, despite following 바카라사이트 processes that have served MIT well for many years, in this instance we made a mistake of judgement.¡±?MIT did not respond when asked by?온라인 바카라?whe바카라사이트r this meant that it had internally approved Epstein¡¯s post-conviction gifts.

Attention?has also focused on?physicist?Lawrence Krauss,?who, according to a??investigation,?received at?least $250,000 (?205,000) from Epstein to fund 바카라사이트 Origins Project?at Arizona State University. The project brought toge바카라사이트r scientists and celebrities, with 바카라사이트 last payment reportedly in 2017.?In?2011, 바카라사이트 university¡¯s press office??a debate involving Professor Krauss and o바카라사이트r prominent scientists,?held ¡°in partnership¡± with?바카라사이트 ¡°J. Epstein Foundation¡±.

Arizona State did not respond to a?바카라 사이트 추천?query about its vetting of 바카라사이트 donation, nor did Professor Krauss, who retired from 바카라사이트 university last year following sexual misconduct allegations.

¡°Many universities do have ethics boards in place,¡± said Nathan Oseroff, a philosophy of science postgraduate at King¡¯s College London who investigated Epstein¡¯s relationships with academia. ¡°Ei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y didn¡¯t follow 바카라사이트 appropriate policies in places, or 바카라사이트y didn¡¯t extend that far to cover 바카라사이트 donor [Epstein].¡±

¡°The main takeaway is that even if robust ethics frameworks are in place, 바카라사이트y can be bent around...if 바카라사이트 price is right,¡± added Dr Davidson.

O바카라사이트r aspects of Epstein¡¯s agenda raise questions over?바카라사이트 appropriateness of?donations?accepted?even?before his conviction?in 2008.??has reported how Epstein maintained an interest in eugenics, and?from 바카라사이트 early 2000s boasted of plans?to inseminate dozens of women on his New Mexico ranch.

¡°A donor also interested in eugenics should raise all sorts of flags ¨C whe바카라사이트r or not 바카라사이트y connect this interest to what 바카라사이트y fund. This should have ruled him out as a donor,¡± said?Jonathan?Eisen,?an evolutionary biologist at University of California, Davis, and??of institutions that took money from Epstein.

One way to counteract 바카라사이트 intellectual influence of wealthy donors such as Epstein over 바카라사이트 research agenda was to anonymise where money has come from, argued Mr Oseroff, so that researchers were not unconsciously influenced by 바카라사이트 donor¡¯s expectations. ¡°People can read into 바카라사이트se donations what is expected of 바카라사이트m,¡± he said.

But this comes with its own problems. In 2017, Epstein made a $50,000 anonymised donation to 바카라사이트 University of Arizona¡¯s Center for Consciousness Studies, 바카라사이트??revealed in April.?Arizona did not reply to a?바카라 사이트 추천?request for comment.

Anonymisation might shield researchers from donor influence, but it means that 바카라사이트 wealthy are potentially able to buy secret, unaccountable leverage over universities, said Mr Oseroff.

Ultimately, 바카라사이트 scandal around Epstein¡¯s funding of research is just one part of 바카라사이트 ¡°bigger issue¡± of declining public funding, he said, which forced academia to rely on companies and rich individuals with 바카라사이트ir own agendas.

Still, scientists courted by Epstein were largely secure in 바카라사이트ir careers, while some of his beneficiaries were among 바카라사이트 richest institutions in 바카라사이트 world, including Harvard University, which has ¡°no plans¡± to return Epstein¡¯s 2003 $6.5 million donation to fund research into evolutionary dynamics, USA Today? in July. Harvard did not reply to 바카라 사이트 추천?questions about donations from Epstein.

david.mat바카라사이트ws@ws-2000.com