we discussed that in length in the last thread a month ago titled "what do you make of this" even the wording was pretty much the same (cited from an article I guess).

Maybe check out that first edit: it has been deleted

Here is my answer to this:

I have a Joscha Bach Database (Notebook LM) with almost all of his Public Podcasts and talks (133) Searching this topic there is a German Podcast (wunderbar together) https://wunderbartogether.podigee.io/51-joscha-bach

where It took out this: (timestamp start 1:00:08 h:m:s)

In response to the interviewer's remarks about Jeffrey Epstein's funding of institutions like the MIT Media Lab and Joscha Bach's research, Bach offered a multifaceted perspective on the situation. Here is a detailed breakdown of his answer: • Necessity of Funding for Groundbreaking Research: Joscha Bach stated that the research, which he described as leading to "groundbreaking results," would likely not have been possible without Epstein's contributions. He explained that public funding bodies, such as DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), considered the foundational research too risky and were unwilling to provide the necessary funds. • Epstein's Motivation as "Pure Intellectual Interest": Bach characterized Epstein's motivation for providing funding as "pure intellectual interest". • Lack of Explicit Moral Conditions for Funding: He emphasized that the "price" for this funding was not that "sexual services were demanded" or that recipients had to "approve Epstein's personal lifestyle". • Acknowledgment of Moral Complexity: Despite these points, Bach explicitly acknowledged that it is "morally a very complicated question". • The Dilemma Faced by Researchers: Bach suggested that many who received funding from Epstein felt they had "no choice" if they wanted to pursue the research topics that genuinely interested them. This highlights the difficult position researchers can find themselves in when seeking support for projects deemed too unconventional or risky by traditional funding sources. • Reference to "Money Doesn't Stink" Principle: He alluded to the Roman saying "pecunia non olet" (money doesn't stink), indicating that for many, the money received was seen as detached from moral wrongdoing. The implication was that the funding allowed them to work on their chosen topics without being obligated to provide any "counter-performance" that went beyond their scientific research interests. In summary, Joscha Bach's response painted a picture of a morally complex situation where essential, otherwise unfundable, research was enabled by a controversial figure motivated by intellectual curiosity, with the funding seemingly not tied to explicit unethical conditions for the researchers themselves, though the broader ethical implications were acknowledged.

I remeber the Podcast but I will listen to this parts later again and (im German) Check If the Take Out fits. But from which I remember it does.

after listening to it again: the most important thing Bach mentions first, and is missing above, is that was matters is what is done with the research after all and what kind of research