By Sheeva Azma

This project is entirely self-funded. Donate to the GoFundMe here.

The social structure of science shapes both science culture and science output.

We know at least 186 scientists are in the Epstein files.

It’s time to reflect on who the “big dogs” are in science and why.

Not too long ago, I published a list of scientists who are in the Epstein files.

I have been looking into who these scientists are and what they did since February 2026. I have also been posting about science in the Epstein files on Instagram — you can view what I’ve collated into movies at this point here: Science in the Epstein files, the movie.

We need to know what circumstances led these scientists to associate with Epstein, whether directly or indirectly, so we can prevent these circumstances from ever happening again.

---

Back in 2023, we published a series of blogs here on a topic known as the “sociology of science.”

In a sense, back then, this was a purely theoretical topic for me. I was frustrated with how I had been pretty much forced to leave academia and was trying to understand it all and make it better for the people who scienced after me.

Understanding the sociology of science seemed like the answer.

Kelly Tabbutt, who now has a PhD in sociology and was a graduate student about to peace out with her degree back then, knows a lot about this topic. The two of us even did a YouTube Live on sociology of science and social science communication, which you can find here.

We first published an article called “Science Doesn’t Happen in a Vacuum,” in which I argued that we have to understand science’s historical, social, and cultural context.

I talked more about sociology of science in this article, which was quoted in a 2026 UNESCO report about science communication in the Arab world. It turns out that the quality of your science infrastructure, including science communication, matters a lot more when you are underresourced, as many science labs outside of the Global North are.

As our science labs continue to lose research funding for largely political reasons here in the US, and China continues on the path to become the world’s science superpower, our science infrastructure, too, will need to be thoroughly scrutinized and evaluated so we can make sure we get the most bang for our buck.

That includes science as well as our science communication infrastructure, which I next talked about here in our 2023 sociology of science blog arc (if that can be a thing).

Kelly and I next wrote an article called “Better Science Through Sociology,” in which we talk about “sociology of science” as a concept and give three examples.

In 2024, we came back to this topic in a recap of a scientific meeting session about what is called “science of science” which reflects not only on sociology of science, but other aspects.

Suffice it to say, we have been introspecting on the social structure of science a lot.

When the Epstein files news broke, I came back to the topic of sociology of science. This takes the form of asking questions like:

• What scientists are in the Epstein files?
• In what ways, obvious and nonobvious, direct and indirect, are these scientists linked to Epstein?
• Why does that matter?

I was shocked to learn that people do not think about this topic as much as me. The comments I get from people continue to surprise me in their lack of nuance, as I have previously written.

In any case, the work continues. In a way, the tough part — reflecting on how we got here — has just started.

186+ scientists (and counting) in the Epstein files are proof that science culture needs a glow-up

Jeffrey Epstein took advantage of science’s existing problem with toxic science culture, finding a safe space where his predation could be normalized and accepted — and even ignored so he could publicly fund science papers.

We have been unpacking science in the Epstein files since February 2026 on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, our blog, and Substack.

One cannot look at all of the things we have uncovered in the past several months and reasonably conclude that science should preserve its status quo.

Subscribe to this blog so you’ll never miss an update.