By Sheeva Azma

This blog talks about Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and is not suitable for all audiences.

Had MIT’s One Science initiative come to fruition, Jeffrey Epstein’s interdisciplinary science influence would increase — it was the perfect plan to distract people from his sexual offenses.

This blog is meant to detail the timeline of what I discovered about the MIT One Science initiative in the Epstein files, as it was discussed in conversations between Jeffrey Epstein, then-director of the MIT Media Lab, Joi Ito, and others.

The MIT report on its Epstein ties mentions One Science in the context of a November 2014 conversation between Ito and Epstein with “the possibility of Epstein donating millions of dollars to MIT, an amount far in excess of the few hundred thousand dollars he had donated up to that point.” Right around that time, Epstein and Ito were emailing about the One Science project in the Epstein files, such as in this email, EFTA02337781, where Ito is laying some groundwork about it in a proposed post on his blog (which was, in fact, actually published — but more on that later).

What has MIT said about One Science?

The “MIT One Science” project itself only has one mention on page 33 of the MIT report on its Epstein ties but it is quite an imbroglio.

MIT decision-makers were chatting about Epstein’s donations in late 2014, according to the MIT report. Key people in the email chain included the Media Lab Director of Development and Julie Lucas, who then newly directed MIT’s funding and philanthropy, succeeding Jeff Newton, the outgoing director. However, the conversation ended going all the way up to MIT’s executive vice president and treasurer (basically, MIT’s chief financial officer), Israel Ruiz, who ok’d seven-figure donations from Epstein, provided that they were anonymous.

This is an excerpt of a 2014 email conversation with Julie Lucas written by the Media Lab Director of Development as published in the MIT report on its Epstein ties:

“Jeffrey [Epstein] is now looking to make a significant gift to the Media Lab, through one of his foundations, called the Enhanced Education Foundation. It might be several million dollars. It would again be anonymous; Jeffrey [Epstein] doesn’t want any recognition, he just wants to work with Joi [Ito] to have an impact on [Ito’s] One Science Initiative.”

This plan — that sounds like it involved accepting a very, very large sum of money from Jeffrey Epstein — hit a bit of a snag with Julie Lucas, but it ultimately proved to be not much of one. “Small, anonymous gifts were fine, but it sounds like this might be in the seven figures, and he suggested you talk with Julie [Lucas] about it,” the MLDD told Ito.

We can see the final verdict in an email from Israel Ruiz, who I mentioned was essentially the chief financial officer of MIT. Ruiz would therefore have the final say, besides the president of MIT at the time, Rafael Reif, who, according to CNN, has denied any involvement besides his signature on a thank you letter to Epstein, which he has stated he does not remember signing. Reif may have been at a high-level meeting where Epstein’s donations were discussed, but according to that official MIT report (page 36, specifically), he has no recollection of it.

There is confusion, in the official MIT report, as to whether these donations may have been mentioned at an early 2015 senior team meeting. Here’s some more info from the 2020 MIT report (pages 36-37) on what people conveniently forgot about these donations, which were in Epstein and Ito’s One Science era.

“Given the passage of time and imperfect memories, there is simply a lack of clarity regarding the nature and detail of any discussion of Epstein at this meeting. The fact-finding indicates that Ruiz intended to bring up the issue of Epstein’s donations at a Senior Team Meeting and that he may have done so briefly, but, if so, in a manner that was inadequate to inform the Senior Team of the serious nature of Epstein’s crimes.”

A footnote on page 36 reads: “While she does not recall a specific discussion at this particular January 2015 Senior Team retreat, Lucas told us that she recalls at least one, maybe two, discussions of Epstein donations at or in connection with a Senior Team meeting, and that one of these discussions occurred in 2015.”

Whether or not they talked about it is somewhat irrelevant here, because Ruiz, the treasurer and decision-maker in the Epstein donation debacle, wrote this in an email: “We agreed with Joi [Ito] (I spoke with him last night) that we could treat this gift coming from the foundation in the same anonymous way for as long as we checked and referenced the source…I told Joi [Ito] basically what I have told via Jeff [Newton] already which is that we could accept seven figure gifts in this manner for now. If the amounts were to be larger, we should discuss again.”

Without knowing what exactly MIT President Reif was looped into, here we can conclude that Ruiz’s approval to receive these funds, even anonymously, was the reason One Science was able to be an idea for as long as it was.

In case you forgot, Ito, the director of the Media Lab actively in contact with Epstein and soliciting these donations, also resigned almost immediately in September 2019 — three months before Ruiz did — after an internal whistleblower went to the media about his accepting donations from Jeffrey Epstein (who people at the MIT Media Lab had started calling “Voldemort” by then).

Ruiz resigned in December 2019 — this official MIT news report on his resignation makes no mention of any Epstein stuff!

Why “One Science”?

One Science started in 2014 and persevered right up until Epstein went to federal prison in 2019.

It just was one of those big, pie-in-the-sky type of things that Epstein and Ito talked about making happen but thankfully, could not, even though as I have just talked about, high-ranking MIT staff cleared the path for it to happen.

The reason I am so thankful MIT One Science never happened — and so grateful to federal authorities for finally deciding that Epstein was such a threat to the public that he needed to be imprisoned before his court date — is because One Science would integrate Epstein and what I see, increasingly, as a scientific misconduct culture that all but follows him around. A retracted paper and closed lab here, a disgraced Nobelist there…making One Science happen would do for MIT what Epstein’s funding of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, where he had an office and which shuttered in 2021, did for Harvard.

It seems obvious to me, after eight months of reading through thousands upon thousands of pages of scientists in the Epstein files, that that’s exactly why he wanted One Science to happen. Epstein wanted to repair his fractured reputation, starting in 2010 when Al Seckel pitched some ideas about how to do that to him, but especially after the Miami Herald started publishing articles about him again in October 2017, which re-focused attention of both everyday people and federal authorities on his activities. He does make mention of this in the Epstein files.

On its surface, what MIT One Science sought to do, which was bridge interdisciplinary divides in academia, was not a bad idea. My master’s in neuroscience is from an interdisciplinary program and I found it very valuable. However, it did not require me to interface with any scientists in the Epstein files (that I know of — and I checked) or a known sex offender and trafficker.

The “mission” for MIT One Science was not science — it was influence and clout.

The people in the room shape the priorities. That’s no secret. So that’s what the tragedy of MIT One Science is — it was shared by people who, quite frankly, either 1) did not care about women or girls or 2) did not do their due diligence to know better than to associate with this person or, even worse, 3) covered up Epstein’s crimes. Perhaps we will never know the true reality there. I do believe that it is not as simple as saying, “oh, these people did not know.” They did know, and in many cases, they supported Epstein through some of the worst of it.

So, let’s get into the timeline.

Timeline of the MIT One Science initiative in the Epstein files

August 21, 2013: First mention of “One Science” in the Epstein files

The first time One Science appears in the Epstein files is an email between Joi Ito and Jeffrey Epstein in late 2013: “one science — did you enjoy pritsker?” writes Epstein to Ito. “Yes. We had a lot of fun and talked a lot about you too!” replies Ito.

It is somewhat unclear who Pritzker is, but my guess is Thomas Pritzker, the billionaire who stepped down from the board of Hyatt Hotels in February 2026 [PBS News/AP] due to his Epstein ties.

August 17, 2014: Epstein explains “ONE SCIENCE” to Bill Gates

“I am starting an institute at MIT calling it ONE SCIENCE. Basically, to explore the intersections of what appears to be diverse fields…I’m happy to drop the subject if you find discomforting or interfering with what I believe is a friendship based on mutual respect,” the convicted sex offender writes to someone who he calls his friend, but who has publicly distanced himself from Epstein, including in Congressional testimony.

Here’s what Bill Gates told Congress on June 10, 2026 (read the full testimony here or on PBS):

“My interactions with Epstein began with a limited number of preliminary meetings, three in 2011 and two in 2012, during which I talked about the goals of my work…The discussions focused on identifying potential giving structures such as donor advice funds and how to enroll individuals he claimed were making significant contributions. I made it clear to Epstein from the outset that he would never play a role in any of the work or receive any compensation. In 2014…I concluded Epstein would never deliver on any of his promises. I told him we would go no further and stopped communicating or meeting with him. No vehicle for charitable giving was ever created and no funds were raised. Our interactions ended in December 2014, 4 years before new reports in the press and unsealed court documents shed additional light on the extent of his crimes.”

There’s a lot of gray area between giving a sex offender money and simply brainstorming together. In any case, access to Bill Gates was a thing that Epstein had. I do not think that is acknowledged at all in this testimony, which, in my opinion, takes associating with Epstein to have a very strict financial definition.

Anyway, if Bill Gates checked his email, he, too knew about One Science — see the second paragraph of this email in the Epstein files.

September 26, 2014: “Gates would like a write up on our One Science program”

According to this email discussion from Epstein to Ito, Bill Gates knew about One Science, all right. Epstein states here that Gates wanted more information about One Science to see if he can “help fund” it.

“I’ll work on the Gates thing. I might write a blog post about “antidisciplinary and one science” as part of this…” Ito writes in another email discussion that involves Epstein talking about “the theory of good sex.”

The blog Ito mentions was published on October 2, 2014, on Ito’s personal blog. About the word “antidisciplinary,” he writes, there:

“One of the first words that I learned when I joined the Media Lab was “antidisciplinary.” It was listed an a requirement in an ad seeking applicants for a new faculty position. Interdisciplinary work is when people from different disciplines work together. An antidisciplinary project isn’t a sum of a bunch of disciplines but something entirely new – the word defies easy definition. But what it means to me is someone or something that doesn’t fit within traditional academic discipline­­­-a field of study with its own particular words, frameworks, and methods.”

He mentions One Science once in the blog, later on:

“We should really be working on “One Science,” but instead we are a mosaic of different disciplines sometimes not even recognizing when we are looking at the same problem because our language is so different and microscopes are set so differently.”

Ito goes on to talk about an interdisciplinary and, presumably, “antidisciplinary” (?) lab involving Ed Boyden, whose involvement with Epstein remains unclear due to conflicting information between himself and the Epstein files: “The Center for Extreme Bionics at the Media Lab–led by Hugh Herr, Ed Boyden, Joe Jacobson, and Bob Langer–utilizes everything from mechanical engineering to synthetic biology to neuroscience in its quest to eliminate a variety of disabilities. This disparate collection of disciplines would never fit in any traditional department or lab.”

Ito ends the blog by saying that “We will still need disciplines, but I think that it’s time we focus on a higher mission and the changes needed in academia and research funding to allow more people to work in the wide-open white space between disciplines – the antidisciplinary space.”

Ito emails the blog to Epstein, who then forwards it to Larry Cohen. Larry Cohen was Bill Gates’ chief of staff and CEO/Managing Partner of Gates Ventures. The Wall Street Journal has written an article on Epstein’s involvement with Gates and Cohen which is here.

It’s unclear to me whether this blog was the only write-up on One Science sent to the Gates foundation. It is clear that Epstein and Gates apparently had a personal conversation about the project, as well, at least according to Epstein’s own words in the emails.

Not too long after that, on October 3, 2014, Epstein and Ito planned to chat about One Science by phone, the emails show.

Also sometime in 2014: Gates donated money directly to MIT, with representatives stating the donation was not related to One Science

The Associated Press wrote in 2019 that Bill Gates denied that a 2014 donation from him was dedicated to the MIT One Science project. Representatives of Bill Gates told the authors of the MIT report on Epstein ties (comments appearing on pages 10-11) that “Mr. Gates and various Gates-related entities have had a strong, decades-long relationship with MIT that predate[s] significantly Mr. Gates’s limited interactions with Mr. Epstein. Their support for MIT and the Media Lab (whether through financial support, thought leadership, participation in MIT-sponsored events, etc.) has always been completely independent of Mr. Epstein.”

December 27, 2014: Epstein and Ito talk about reaching out to influential scientists, entrepreneurs, journalists, and others about One Science

In late December, 2014, Epstein forwards Ito an email from John Brockman of the Edge Foundation with many different influential people’s names and emails. The people on this list include famous scientists and tech entrepreneurs — a quick skim revealed the founders of Google, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Elon Musk of SpaceX, as well as Nellie Bowles, then a New York Times reporter who would eventually talk to the sex offender about her partner, the current editor-in-chief of CBS, Bari Weiss (that email conversation happened in the Epstein files in October 2018).

May 1, 2016: “Should we run some type of summer program [for kids] to attract the desired rebels?” — Jeffrey Epstein

The discussions continue between Epstein and Ito and others. In late November, 2015, Ed Boyden is also part of the discussion via this email discussion between Boyden and Ito that Ito ends up forwarding to Epstein.

Ito, in talking about setting up a summer program for K-12 students at the MIT Media Lab, asks Boyden about his experience as a student at the Texas Academy of Math and Science or TAMS. “I’m moving forward with the idea of a boarding school for the Media Lab for pre-college kids…want to use you and TAMS as a model I think. But maybe our search should be more sophisticated,” Ito tells Boyden.

On May 1, 2016, Epstein floats the idea of running a summer program affiliated with One Science to attract young, impressionable minds: “Should we run some type of summer program / event to attract the desired rebels? Some structure that benefits the nominators, a la Larry’s social person inserted in junior year?”

“This ties into the science fellows thing that we’re trying to set up,” Ito replies. “We were going to bring them in for the summer and the kind of kid we are looking for is the same. We were going to design an online search and a nomination system. I could add it to the Jr. Year search person. Also, the annual Disobedience Prize should connect with this too.”

Epstein and Ito also discuss calling One Science a different name, ANTI, which looks like it is short for “Antidisciplinary” — the idea Ito blogged about in 2014.

“Let’s talk this morning. I think the One Science. Anti is good for kids but bad for funding,” Epstein replies.

Incidentally, a journalist named Anand Giridharadas talks about being approached by the Media Lab to be part of the awarding committee for the The Disobedience Prize in 2019, but then being grossed out due to the Media Lab’s obvious, but effortfully hidden, Epstein ties by then.

Surely, that started when Ito asked Epstein to proofread the Disobedience Prize email he wrote back in this same email chain.

May 8, 2017: Ito sends Epstein instructions for sending a check to MIT Media Lab

Ito writes Epstein, including three attachments, one looking, from their file names, to address each of the following numbered points: “Here is a short description of 1) the One Science program 2) the instructions for sending the check and 3) a template of a letter that should accompany the check from the donor explaining that the check is a gift.”

May 29, 2017: Updated One Science proposal seeks to transcend “the constraints of typical foundation and federal funding approaches”

On May 29, 2017, Ito sends Epstein not one, but two proposals for One Science. Here is the first one and here is the second one. The second one is a bit more direct, starting off with the following:

“We propose ‘One Science’ initiative hosted at the Media Lab to generate and launch a number of collaborative research programs in science by approaching the development of the questions as well as the framework for addressing them in a new and nontraditional way. This will require discretionary funding that allows flexibility, pivoting, and interdisciplinary collaboration beyond the constraints of typical foundation and federal funding approaches.”

“I’ll edit over the next few days. Good first draft,” replies Epstein.

July 10, 2017: Epstein talks to his PR person about One Science

Matthew Hiltzik is a PR person who worked with Epstein starting in 2017, charging him $25,000 in June 2017, according to the Hollywood Reporter. Hiltzik wrote a memo for Epstein on how to boost his image, including using “third party validators” to, basically, put in a good word for Epstein.

In an email between the two of them in the Epstein files, Epstein says that his audience in Europe is “narrow” and that “my funding the One Science project at Harvard” (though it is at MIT) “is useless to them.”

“Got it,” the publicist replies.

July 16, 2017: “Feeding One Science” and a proposed introduction to a professor ousted from MIT due to sexual misconduct

In July 2017, Epstein emails Ito, simply stating, “one science”?

Ito writes back and says, “One Science! 🙂 Do you need anything more from me on feeding One Science? Where are you?”

I looked but could not find an answer to that particular email.

However, that same day, Epstein forwards Ito an invitation to meet David Sabatini, a now-ousted professor from MIT found liable of sexual misconduct (though billionaire hedge funder Bill Ackman donated $25 million to his career when he started over again as a researcher in Europe). The invitation came from Peter Attia, himself ousted from CBS News due to his significant and troubling Epstein ties.

Ito writes back to the invitation, and says, “Is this ‘feeding One Science'”?

August 10-12, 2017: Talking to Bill Gates about One Science (again)

On August 10, Epstein emails Ito and says a whole jumble of different ideas when talking about One Science:

“I would tell Gates, if I were you, that One Science is the most exciting. Forget transgender — it’s transscience. You can tell him that you and I have no interest in donor-advised funds. Too complicated. But cutting edge. Brain stimulation, plant and human interaction. Mathematics that can deal with millions of outputs. Biology, vs few inputs physics needs to be developed. I told him he would have FUN at the theory level, instead of being under Melinda’s thumb (fat thumb).”

Two days later, Epstein emails Gates himself and says:

“I think you would find the ONE SCIENCE with Media Lab fun. Cutting edge thinking, various fields. Cryptocurrencies, optogenetics, plant biology. It’s the idea lab on the east like Nathan [Myhrvold?], Danny [Hillis?] and Lowell [Wood?] on the west is engineering.”

February 17, 2018: Epstein plans to (again) visit the Harvard research institute he founded where he has an office to talk about One Science

Coordinating emails between Epstein’s scheduler and Martin Nowak, the former head of the Epstein-supported Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, show that on Saturday, February 17th, Epstein was to travel to Harvard Square, to the PED building where he had his own office, to meet with Hugh Herr and Ed Boyden to discuss One Science.

“If possible, please reserve time for me and Jeffrey alone in the beginning, before the others arrive,” replied Nowak to Epstein’s scheduler.

“Jeffrey says he will be at your office from 11 am on,” says the scheduler. The 3 pm is a meeting with Ito, 4 pm is the Digital Currency Initiative team, and 6 pm was Herr/Boyden for One Science, according to preliminary planning.

“I figure 11-12 can be you,” the scheduler writes to Nowak.

“Please ask Joscha [Bach] to come after 2 pm,” Nowak writes. It is unclear why, ultimately, an 11 am to 1 pm block was blocked off in the final itinerary Epstein’s scheduler shared with Epstein.

July 5-25, 2018: “Please prepare a request for $25 million for a maverick program.” — Jeffrey Epstein

On July 5, Epstein writes Ito (beginning a multi-week email discussion) and says, “please prepare a request for $25 million for a maverick program.”

“For my fund or Media Lab? To give me or pay me? ;-)” says Ito.

“Media Lab, program. Slush,” replies Epstein.

Over a two week period, Ito tries to figure out if the $25 million would be coming from Mohammad bin Salman.

“No, it is a friend, but his foundation needs a proposal,” replies Epstein.

“What kind of proposal? One Science? Can you tell me roughly what kind of person or institution it is?” Ito asks in a separate email discussion.

“Friend with billion dollar personal foundation,” Epstein replies.

After a few days, on July 22, Ito writes back, saying:

“Struggling a bit on the proposal. What needs to be in it? Here are a menu of things. Tell me which ones.

1 – A description of the Lab?

2 – A list of our research groups.

3 – A list of existing initiatives.

4 – A budget

5 – A specific project or focus for the funding

These are a few different ideas for what to use the money for

A – A non-profit research/deployment lab attached to the Media Lab that would fund both research in the lab as well as deploying them into the real world. The money could kick off this translation/deployment lab.

B – A slush fund for Joi

C – The Center for Extreme Bionics – Ed [Boyden], Hugh [Herr], Kevin, etc.

D – Some sort of new initiative like a “One Science” initiative… and if so, how fuzzy can it be?

Epstein writes back a few hours later and just says: “B d.” It looks like he was trying to communicate that the money would go to a slush fund for Ito as well as the One Science initiative previously discussed.

A couple days later, Ito writes back with a short proposal.

Ito asks whether the fund should be a donor-advised fund or not, and Epstein sends Ito this New York Times article, which talks about downsides of donor-advised funds, so I’m guessing that was a ‘no’ especially since he already talked to Bill Gates and Ito about his dislike of donor-advised funds.

Ito then sends off another blurb! Epstein says it is “very good.”

Epstein then sends the blurb to billionaire hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin, who is the spouse of Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, Dr. Eva Andersson-Dubin. The Dubins have their Dubin Family Foundation, a New York-based 501(c)(3) private organization established in 2002 that gives out grants.

“I’ve heard of it sounds really interesting. How does it differ from the MIT Research Labs like the one Bob Langer runs?” asks Dubin.

Epstein’s review of the MIT Media Lab to Dubin is glowing: “Langer is specialized and old. MIT Media is young. Cutting edge experimental. Special minds. Not searching for a cure, searching the space of interesting ideas, engineering AI, plants, crypto, etc. Fundamentally if you could do the work anywhere else they prefer you not join, amazing people.”

March 1, 2019: Epstein talks about “doing science,” not throwing “sex parties,” as his activity of interest

A few months later, the Department of Justice reopened its investigation of Epstein, and the convicted sex offender’s attention returned to protecting his image.

“There was never a sex party,” Epstein wrote in one missive to Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz, and others. “Epstein does not have parties. He had a science gathering and allegations were made that one of the women was required to have sex with academics, world leaders, academics including Stephen [Hawking]? The guest list [was] used to accuse people of sex assault.”

He was writing about a New York Times article, that, according to him, got it all wrong. Martin Weinberg wrote back with a “very quick morning stab at a possible letter to editor.”

The editorial in question was this article about how Alex Acosta’s “sweetheart deal” for Epstein was an act of cowardice to help Jeffrey Epstein live above the law.

Weinberg wrote to Epstein and friends in that same email chain, “The NYT Editorial is enraging in its political bias – and is deeply damaging.”

Weinberg’s quick letter to editor was published in the New York Times on March 4, 2019.

April 7, 2019: Epstein concludes women are bad at mathematics, good at “sensing the mood, creating the environment.”

In April 7, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein appears to email Martin Nowak, the director of the PED who requested extra time with him on the day of his One Science meeting at the Harvard Square PED office, to name-drop some influential mathematicians and physicists, and to say:

“Larry Summers was right. Women are not good at mathematics. They are good at miracles. Giving birth for example. Sensing the mood, creating the environment.”

On July 7, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein was apprehended by federal authorities on suspicion of sex trafficking. Epstein was on his way to have lunch with disgraced Nobelist James Watson, who said similar things that were hostile to women.

What does the One Science story tell us besides a story of corrupt, grifting scientists and university professionals? It gives rise to the idea that Jeffrey Epstein was only concerned with improving his reputation and leveraging his clout so that he could continue to live above the law and disregard the lives of women and girls he abused (and those women scientists he slandered to his male scientist friends)…all under covered up under the guise of helping “science” — when he was really just helping himself and his friends.

Science has an Epstein problem

Epstein affiliation among scientists is not good for science culture, but you can’t understand what you don’t know! That’s why we have been unpacking the science in the Epstein files since February 2026. Follow us on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, our blog, and our Substack, for more.