Newly released emails from the Department of Justice reveal that Antonio Damasio, the director of the Brain and Creativity Institute at the University of Southern California (USC), sought funding from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2013 for neuroscience research focused on the origins of emotions and feelings. Damasio, who holds the Dornsife Chair in Neuroscience, reached out to Epstein with a research proposal, expressing a desire to circumvent typical grant funding processes to maintain control over the project’s direction.
Shortly after the proposal was sent, Damasio met with Epstein in New York. He later stated that he was unaware of Epstein’s criminal background at the time of their meeting, describing it as a “routine private contact.” Damasio emphasized that had he known of Epstein’s convictions, he would not have approached him for funding, stating, “I was looking for a prestigious philanthropist, not a criminal.”
Ultimately, Epstein did not provide funding for Damasio’s research. Instead, during their conversation, Epstein advised Damasio to pursue private funding from philanthropists based in California. Damasio noted that he and his wife had previously met Epstein at a dinner party in Manhattan in 2009, attended by several other academics. It’s important to mention that Epstein was serving time for soliciting prostitution, including involving a minor, during that period.
Damasio mentioned that he and his wife were invited at least once to fly on Epstein’s private plane and visit his island, but they declined those offers. He remarked that he likely became aware of Epstein’s criminal activities in 2019 after the financier’s subsequent arrest.
The emails also indicated that Damasio was not the only individual from USC to communicate with Epstein. In 2012, David Agus, a professor of medicine and bioengineering at USC, received correspondence from Epstein’s assistant regarding a potential meeting. Upon discovering Epstein’s criminal history after initial contact, Agus chose to decline any further engagement, informing Epstein’s assistant that he was unavailable.
Despite the troubling nature of these discoveries, the university has refrained from commenting further beyond what has already been disclosed, maintaining that many individuals appearing in Epstein’s emails are not implicated in any wrongdoing. This situation highlights the complexities and ethical considerations surrounding academic funding and associations in the light of personal integrity and public image.