USC

Correction to our story on Epstein funding Alzheimer’s research in 2012

Building with trees and tables
USC Keck School of Medicine, Zilkha Neurogenetic Institute (Photo by Lizzy Liautaud)

Annenberg Media prides itself on producing reporting for our campus community that is what we determine culturally relevant — stories that we feel must be told to create a better-informed student and university body. This week, we sought to do so with the release of thousands of emails from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s estate.

After publishing one story on this topic, we learned new information that challenged the basis of our reporting. We find it necessary to be transparent with our readership about the flaws of that story, to correct previously published details and explain how it happened.

Wednesday we reported that the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation, alongside the Alzheimer’s Association, financed a study done by scientists at USC and Rochester University. This was based on a press release published in 2012, approximately one month after that study was published in Nature scientific journal.

After publication, we became aware that the professor who did the research wrote online in September 2022 that the press release was inaccurate, and that neither Epstein nor the Alzheimer’s Association financed the work. The acknowledgements of the published study thank the National Institute of Health for grants used to support the research. Our initial story was wrong, and we regret this error.

The story also misinterpreted the email released by the Department of Justice. It incorrectly reported that the USC professor who did the research had written to Epstein, offering to become a “scout” for Epstein’s charity, and suggesting two Alzheimer’s research projects for funding. The email actually was sent by a redacted sender, and the professor’s Alzheimer’s work is suggested in that email. We contacted the professor, who did not respond.

We put the story under review and will not be republishing it until we can report the full, accurate picture.

These are errors we deeply regret — not only because they were inaccurate, but because they generated public reaction that was misfounded. Most critically, we hope this does not impede public trust in the extremely valuable reporting which our student journalists produce at Annenberg Media. This is an isolated event in our newsroom’s history, and one that we will work thoroughly to learn from and rectify.