Warning: this is a blog post featuring Epstein and quite a few well-known scientists and universities. I’m not writing this as a trigger warning as such, but you might come across names, past and present, that are uncomfortable to read. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

In recent years, there have been multiple scandals in academia. Investigations have exposed cases of misconduct across universities. In my own field, there have been examples of individuals with a large and unwanted impact. And history, of course, is full of both small and large academic dramas. You probably know my ambivalent stance towards Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a man of many talents and at least five huge mistakes. And that earlier post of mine still tends to make some people uncomfortable, even if the frustration is often directed at the messenger.

But the Epstein case seems to be of a different order, above all because of its scale. As early as 2019, it became clear how often there were links between Epstein and higher education in the United States. And the names in the files are not minor ones. Think, e.g. of Stephen Hawking. Epstein liked to surround himself with well-known scientists. But often it went beyond mere association, without necessarily involving criminal behaviour. Take Dan Ariely, for example, who has since become controversial for other reasons as well. And what about someone like Noam Chomsky? The still-living legend maintained contact with Epstein for years, even after his conviction, exchanging views on intellectual and practical matters, something later described by his circle as a serious error of judgment. No shit, Sherlock?

And it doesn’t stop there. As Josh Cowen argues in a recent blog, this is not simply a series of individual missteps. It points to a pattern embedded in how part of the elite university system operates. The same networks of prestige, money and influence that shape who rises to the top, who attracts funding, and who becomes a “rockstar” in academia, are often the very networks in which these names circulate.

This is not necessarily about guilt or illegality, but about culture. A culture in which proximity to power becomes normalised, where boundaries blur, and where critical voices remain strikingly quiet when it matters most. If you are used to shaping the rules, it may become easier not to apply them too strictly to yourself. What we are seeing, then, is less a collection of scandals and more a system that protects itself.

Meanwhile, I meet hardworking researchers almost every day who genuinely want to move the world forward. Who worry about small details to get things right. Who are far removed from the world I just described. But who are still part of it, and can suffer the consequences alongside all of us. Not to the same extent as the actual victims, of course. But that may be the most uncomfortable insight of all: this is not a story of a few bad apples, but of a system that includes the good ones as well.