Comments contextualizing the Goodwin Procter report

I am writing this statement to clarify my interactions with Jeffrey Epstein as noted in the Goodwin Procter report, with the hope of providing additional context. I cooperated fully with the Goodwin Procter investigation, disclosing everything I knew, with the goal of being fully transparent. The report provided a one-line summary of this interview, leaving out what I believe are relevant details. 

As described in the Goodwin Procter report, I presented my lab’s research to Epstein at the request of former MIT Media Lab Director Joi Ito. I did not accept funding from Epstein, either for my research or for my companies. 

Although Ito vouched for Epstein, I was uncomfortable at these meetings knowing that Epstein had been convicted of a serious crime. I didn’t act upon this discomfort, and I deeply regret attending these meetings and presenting my research at them.  

As the report describes, some of these meetings were off-campus. These meetings all took place in group settings with the purpose of discussing research, which is what I did while there. Two of these meetings were at Epstein's house, one was a Silicon Valley dinner that many entrepreneurs attended, and the remaining two were at a Harvard laboratory.  The only thing I did at these meetings was discuss research. I recognize that taking part in these meetings was a mistake, which I deeply regret.

I am continuing to learn from my mistake. I am talking with members of the MIT community about my experience and how we might together improve the vetting process for potential funders.

A list of resources available to the MIT community can be found here. Additional information can be found on the Institute Discrimination and Harassment Response (IDHR) Office’s website.

— Ed Boyden

Related Content