turns out that epstein was part of the eugenics crowd of true believers. Hardly good news because you can be sure that this eff0ort did not end when disclosure happened. we keep going back and forth through history and keep digging up what can be described as scientific fools
It is easy to develop a scientific aspiration. Execution is often impossible, not unlike our centuries of effort on alchemy whose basis i at least understand.
All these chaps have significant scientific exposure but clearly lack sophistication and are dangerously naive. think Bill Gates.
Part 14 of The Epstein Files Series
When Jeffrey Epstein told scientists he wanted to “seed the human race with his DNA,” the claim was widely dismissed as eccentric dinner-party speculation. Newly released federal exhibits suggest it may have been something more organized — and far more operational
In July 2019, weeks before his death, the New York Times published an account that stunned the scientific community. Jeffrey Epstein, the paper reported, had for years confided to scientists and associates his desire to seed the human race with his own DNA. The Times documented his aspirations as dinner party conversation and found no evidence they had ever come to fruition.
Twenty-four federal exhibits from the January 2026 DOJ EFTA release tell a more complete story. They document not a sudden obsession but a sustained, eight-year private pursuit: active correspondence with George Church — one of the world’s most prominent geneticists — as early as November 2011; a 2014 exchange with a major healthcare executive who asked casually for “cloning updates”; the circulation of Church’s transhumanist writings under the subject line “my friend george” in 2015; and then, beginning in July 2018, a fully operational investment relationship with a biohacker running an overseas surgical laboratory, toward a company whose stated objectives included the first live birth of a human designer baby or human clone within five years.
The Times documented Epstein’s aspiration. These documents document eight years of operational pursuit.
Among those operations: the legal formation of an investment entity, conducted by Epstein’s longtime attorney Darren Indyke, for a $10 million human genome engineering portfolio submitted by one of Harvard’s most prominent geneticists — and the concurrent storage of Epstein’s own biological tissue samples inside that geneticist’s institutional infrastructure at Harvard Medical School. These facts were not disclosed when Epstein’s ties to Harvard and MIT became a public scandal in 2019.
Part I: The Pre-History (2009–2015)
October 2009 — “A Hacking Protocol”: Epstein on DNA
Two years before Epstein’s first documented cloning correspondence with George Church, and three years before CRISPR-Cas9 became the defining tool of human genome editing, Epstein was describing gene expression manipulation in his own terms to a virologist.
On October 18, 2009, writing to Nathan Wolfe — pandemic surveillance expert, founder of Global Viral, and a member of Epstein’s science advisory network — Epstein attaches a URL to the classic Alice-and-Bob cryptography text on public-key encryption protocols and writes: “trick now is to apply it to dna, rna i, seems to be a hacking protocol. turn on some turn off others.”
The reference is precise. Epstein was reading about cryptographic key exchange — the system by which information is encoded, selectively accessible, and controlled — and mapping it directly onto gene expression: genes as switches, turned on and off like cryptographic keys. “Hacking” the protocol means gaining the ability to flip those switches deliberately. This is not the language of someone encountering the idea for the first time.
Embedded in the same thread is an inbound introduction that, in its unredacted form, identifies a key figure. Alice A. Jacobs, M.D. — Chairman and CEO of IntelligentMDx, an early detection diagnostics company in Cambridge, MA — writes to Epstein via an introduction from Henry Rosovsky (Harvard’s former Dean of Arts and Sciences). Her opening: “My business partner and best friend Boris Nikolic has become Bill Gates’ right arm on strategy.”
Boris Nikolic — who would appear in the 2012 SIOM thread as part of the Epstein-Merkin-Gates network, who was Bill Gates’s chief science advisor from 2006 to 2014, and who Epstein named as a potential executor in his will signed the day before his death — was already documented in Epstein’s social network in October 2009, introduced through Harvard channels, three years before his next documented appearance.
What this establishes: Epstein was applying a cryptographic-switch conceptual model to genetic editing in October 2009. Boris Nikolic’s connection to Epstein’s network dates to at least 2009 — three years earlier than previously documented. The introduction came through Harvard social channels (Rosovsky), through a Cambridge-based biotech entrepreneur (Jacobs) who described Nikolic as Gates’s strategic right arm.
What this does not establish: That Epstein had any specific program or investment in view in 2009. That Nikolic was aware of or involved in Epstein’s cloning ambitions. That Jacobs’s business pitch to Epstein went anywhere.
2007–2010 — The Edge Network and Synthetic Genomics
Epstein’s connection to George Church did not originate with their 2011 cloning correspondence. It runs through John Brockman and the Edge Foundation — the exclusive intellectual salon that brought together scientists, technologists, and financiers at private retreats.
In June 2010, Brockman invites Epstein to an Edge Seminar, referencing the landmark 2007 Edge event — “Life: What A Concept” — in which George Church, Freeman Dyson, J. Craig Venter, and others explored synthetic genomics. The 2009 Edge Master Class on Synthetic Genomics featured Church and Venter again, held at the Andaz Hotel and SpaceX in Los Angeles.
A German journalist attending the 2007 event wrote:
“Nobody at Eastover Farm seemed afraid of a eugenic revival. What in German circles would have released violent controversies, here drifts by unopposed under mighty maple trees.”
By the time Epstein’s first direct cloning correspondence with Church is documented in November 2011, the two men had been moving in the same elite scientific salon for years.
What this establishes: Epstein’s relationship with Church predates the 2011 documents; it was embedded in a broader network of synthetic genomics intellectuals curated by Brockman through Edge.
May 2012 — The SIOM Vehicle and Boris Nikolic
While the Church relationship was developing intellectually, a parallel financial infrastructure was already in operation. A May 2012 email thread concerning a China healthcare investment reveals that Epstein and Richard Merkin were co-investing through a shared vehicle: Merkin refers to “what secures the SIOM investment” in the context of a $10 million commitment. SIOM is Epstein and Merkin’s joint investment structure — predating by two years the $10M biotech portfolio Church would pitch specifically to this vehicle.
The thread also introduces a figure who would later become significant: Boris Nikolic, at the time Bill Gates’s chief science advisor. Epstein forwards the China investment correspondence to Nikolic with the note: “this is dick merkin, telling my friend that he is playing tennis with bill. david is my china contact.” Nikolic responds that Gates is playing tennis that weekend before they travel to San Francisco to review the Kleiner Perkins portfolio. Merkin, meanwhile, is moving between a healthcare conference and a three-day tennis event with Bill Gates.
The practical significance: when Church submitted his $10M genome engineering portfolio proposal in July 2014 addressed to “the SIOM,” he was pitching not Epstein alone but the Epstein-Merkin co-investment structure — with Boris Nikolic in the overlapping network.
Nikolic later featured in the final chapter of Epstein’s life: Epstein’s will, signed the day before his death, named Nikolic as a potential executor.
What this establishes: The investment vehicle Church’s genome engineering pitch was addressed to was a pre-existing Epstein-Merkin structure. Nikolic was embedded in this network by 2012. The genome engineering investment, if it occurred, would have involved Merkin as co-investor.
What this does not establish: That Nikolic knew about or was involved in the genome engineering pitch. That any SIOM investment in Church’s portfolio was completed. The full scope of SIOM’s investments.
May 2013 — Epstein Brokers the Church-Merkin Introduction
The Church-Merkin connection was not organic. It was brokered by Epstein.
On May 1, 2013, Epstein emails Church and Merkin together with four words: “george dick, dick george.” — a mutual introduction.
Church follows up to Merkin on May 5, cc’ing Epstein:
“I believe that you both were interested in our disruptive technologies (precise, fast and inexpensive) for human genome (and microbiome) engineering -- especially in the context of our PGP biobank human stem cell samples — which we (& NIST + FDA, genomeinabottle.org) feel are the only ones in the world properly consented for broad commercial use.”
Church references “a conversation in LA” as the occasion of their prior meeting — meaning Epstein had already brought Church and Merkin into the same room before making the email introduction.
When Merkin does not respond within two weeks, Church reports back to Epstein: “No response, so far, from Richard Merkin.” Epstein forwards the message to Merkin asking “where is the article?” — actively managing the introduction and pushing Merkin to engage. Merkin tells Epstein they are scheduled to speak on June 3. The chain closes.
By April 2014, Merkin was asking Epstein for “cloning updates” — a year after Epstein introduced him to the Harvard geneticist working on human genome engineering.
What this establishes: Epstein deliberately introduced Church and Merkin to each other as co-investment prospects in human genome engineering, following a prior in-person meeting he arranged. The Church-Merkin relationship was a product of Epstein’s brokerage, not an independent connection.
What this does not establish: What was discussed in the LA meeting. Whether Merkin and Church ever spoke on June 3. Whether any co-investment resulted from this introduction.
July 20–21, 2013 — Gershenfeld, Church, and the Neanderthal Surrogate Story
EFTA01741902
In January 2013, five months before Epstein brokered the Church-Merkin introduction, George Church became the center of a global media firestorm. Der Spiegel had misquoted him as seeking a “surrogate mother” to carry a cloned Neanderthal baby. The story went globally viral.
On July 20, 2013 — by which point the story had been circulating for six months — Epstein writes to Neil Gershenfeld (Director of MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, and a senior figure in the Brockman/Edge network) about a recent in-person meeting with Church: “met with george church afterward shared our neil fan club secret handshake.” The next day, Gershenfeld writes back to Epstein, attaching a link to a debunking piece about the Neanderthal baby story: “I assume you’ve seen” this.
Two things are established by this exchange. First, Epstein was meeting George Church in person in mid-2013 and discussing him with another senior MIT scientist immediately afterward. Second, the Church surrogate/cloning controversy was not a topic these men held at arm’s length — Gershenfeld assumed Epstein was tracking it closely enough to have seen the debunking article, and used it as casual conversational reference. Church’s public association with cloning and surrogacy was ambient shared context in Epstein’s scientific network.
What this establishes: Epstein had a sustained, in-person relationship with Church in 2013, and Church’s cloning-adjacent public controversy was known and referenced between Epstein and his MIT network contacts.
What this does not establish: What Epstein and Church discussed in person. That Gershenfeld had knowledge of Epstein’s private cloning ambitions.
The earliest documents in this set place Epstein in active correspondence with George Church — Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and one of the founding figures of modern genomics — on the explicit subject of cloning.
On November 18, 2011, Epstein writes to Church: “sorry, you can’t make it. did the cloning issue, give you pause?”
Church’s response does not deflect or dismiss the framing. He writes:
“Yes. I’m working toward this goal fairly rapidly, but trying to do so in a way that minimizes risk to the field. James Wilson (who happened to be my physician, in the 1990s) set back the field of gene therapy by a decade by rushing... My lab is good at conceiving of radically new technologies as well as improving throughput and quality by factors of ten. Given a couple of years and decent funding, this would become much more reasonable.”
The phrase “working toward this goal” — in direct response to Epstein’s question about whether the cloning issue gave him pause — places Church as an active participant in a shared conversation about advancing cloning-adjacent research, not merely a passive scientist declining to comment. He frames the question as one of timing and resources, not ethics or feasibility.
Two days later, on November 20, Church writes to Epstein explaining how he will spend his December:
“Probably rather than relaxing, I’ll be spending my ‘spare time’ in December raising funds for PersonalGenomes.org (which includes adult human tissue cloning & genome engineering)”
Epstein’s prior message in this thread: “I fully understand, why don’t you come and I won’t mention it. I just find it intellectually amusing.”
Epstein’s deliberate offer not to mention “it” — in the context of an exchange about the cloning issue causing Church to decline an event — indicates he was aware of the reputational sensitivity of this subject for Church and was actively managing that sensitivity to preserve the relationship.
What this establishes: By November 2011, Epstein and George Church had an established enough relationship on the subject of cloning and genome engineering that Epstein could ask Church directly whether cloning gave him pause in declining an invitation. Church confirmed he was actively working toward a goal in this space and needed only time and funding.
What this does not establish: That Epstein funded Church’s work. That Church’s “goal” was identical to Epstein’s personal reproductive ambitions. That PersonalGenomes.org’s cloning research had any connection to Epstein’s subsequent private program.
June 25–26, 2013 — Church Personally Arranges the Biopsy
What was already in storage by August 2013 did not arrive there through institutional routine. The origin is documented in a June 2013 email thread between Lesley Groff and George Church — initiated the day before Epstein’s Harvard visit and resolved within 24 hours.
On June 25, 2013, Groff writes to Church directly: “Jeffrey is asking if he could have some skin cells taken while he is up at Harvard on Friday so that he may have his genome done... Might this be possible to set up?” Church asks whether Epstein wants the procedure conducted under PersonalGenomes.org’s public research framework or more privately. Groff relays Epstein’s answer: “Jeffrey says it doesn’t matter if it is public. Makes no difference to him.”
Church moves immediately: “It looks like we might be able to do this Friday (at least the MD and biopsy parts are scheduled), but need to know the time of day so the technicians can get the skin cells growing before taking off for the weekend. Also will need a consent form signature (after the test is done).” He directs that Jeffrey sign up through the PersonalGenomes.org enrollment portal, acknowledging the steps are tedious but assuring that not all personal health information is required before Friday.
The following morning, Church confirms the location: MGH, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, for a 12:45pm arrival.
Three facts are established by this exchange that were not visible from the August 2013 update alone. First, Church personally coordinated every element of the procedure — the MD, the biopsy technicians, the cell culture timing, the consent form, and the enrollment process. He was not an institutional backdrop; he was the organizer. Second, Epstein was enrolled in PersonalGenomes.org through this exchange — which is why he appears as a PGP participant in the Harvard newsletter cited later in this series. Third, when Epstein’s Harvard ties became a public scandal in 2019 and when PGP-affiliated research was discussed, the fact that Epstein’s own biological samples had entered the PGP pipeline through Church’s direct personal arrangement was not publicly disclosed.
What this establishes: George Church personally arranged Jeffrey Epstein’s skin biopsy at MGH on or around June 28, 2013, enrolling him in the PersonalGenomes.org research program. The cell lines that appeared in liquid nitrogen storage in the August 1 status update were created through Church’s direct coordination, one month earlier.
What this does not establish: That Church knew about Epstein’s private reproductive ambitions at the time of the biopsy. That PersonalGenomes.org itself had any connection to Epstein’s cloning program. What Epstein and Church discussed during the Harvard visit beyond the biopsy logistics.
August 2013 — iPS Cell Lines: Epstein’s Biology Inside Church’s Lab
The biological program was further advanced than any of the 2014 documents alone would suggest. An August 1, 2013 email from Dr. Joseph Thakuria — sent to Epstein’s assistant with Dr. George Church directly cc’d — reports on the status of Epstein’s personal biological materials already in process at MGH:
“Jeffrey’s skin biopsy resulted in several successful, viable fibroblast cultures. Those cell lines are now stored in liquid nitrogen and slated for iPS cell line (’adult stem cells’) creation.”
This is not a future plan or a funding conversation. As of August 2013, Epstein’s skin biopsy had been taken, the cultures had succeeded, the cell lines were in liquid nitrogen storage at MGH, and the next step — induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell creation — was already scheduled.
iPS cells are reprogrammed adult cells that revert to an embryonic-like pluripotent state. They are the precise cellular technology that underpins modern therapeutic cloning and somatic cell nuclear transfer approaches. In 2018, Bryan Bishop would describe his cloning technique as “more similar to cloning” than standard gene editing, and as not requiring injection to the biological father — a description consistent with iPS-based nuclear transfer methodology. Epstein’s own cells were being converted to this state, stored, and monitored five years earlier.
Critically: George Church was a named recipient of this status update. He was not merely a funding target or an intellectual interlocutor — he was being kept directly informed of progress with Epstein’s personal cell lines.
The bottom of the thread shows the prompt: Epstein’s assistant wrote to “George and Joe” that morning — “Jeffrey requested I check in and see how things are progressing with his genome.” Church and Thakuria were jointly managing Epstein’s personal biological program.
In the months that followed, the pipeline moved into vendor negotiation. Between December 2013 and January 2014, Thakuria exchanged a sustained series of emails with Epstein’s office working through the invoice for the full program. The scope Thakuria outlined ran to approximately $30,000 — the figure Epstein had indicated over the phone: whole-genome sequencing through Illumina at $5,000–10,000; bioinformatic analysis across two to four platforms; and iPS cell line generation at approximately $10,000 over six months, with success not guaranteed. Thakuria noted explicitly that he would not accept personal payment and that all of his own analytical work would be pro bono — a structuring choice that places his relationship to the program outside a standard vendor arrangement.
Rich Kahn at HBRK Associates was tracking this thread in real time. A January 10, 2014 forward shows Kahn receiving Thakuria’s status updates — the same financial infrastructure that would execute the $11,400 Illumina payment six weeks later was already monitoring the invoice process from its inception.
What this establishes: By August 2013, Epstein had a skin biopsy, viable fibroblast cell cultures in liquid nitrogen storage, and an active iPS cell line creation program underway at MGH — with George Church directly cc’d on progress. The biological program was operational before the Church-Merkin introduction, before the investment pitch, and before the Indyke entity formation. The December 2013–January 2014 invoice correspondence documents the transition from biological storage to funded sequencing, with HBRK financially engaged throughout.
March 2014 — “Our Plan Is to Keep This Data Private”
Eight months after the iPS cell line update, the financial and institutional mechanics of Epstein’s genome sequencing are documented in detail. The thread opens February 21, 2014: Lesley Groff writes to Thakuria introducing Rich Kahn — described as “Jeffrey’s accountant” at HBRK Associates Inc., 575 Lexington Avenue, New York — with the instruction that Epstein wants a $5,000 genetic workup done to start. Thakuria’s response lays out why the clinical route was deliberately bypassed:
“Jeffrey and I agreed the research route made the most sense. For one, ordering a whole genome on a (presumably) healthy patient is not currently indicated. Doing this as a patient (at least at mgh) would also entail creating a medical record of the encounter and the results. Our plan is to keep this data private — at least until he’s had a chance to review with me. So, for this reason, we also agreed to go the ‘research study’ route with his genome.”
This is a documented, jointly-decided routing away from the standard clinical channel — specifically to prevent Epstein’s genomic data from entering the medical record system. Thakuria adds the institutional approval: “I’ve discussed doing Jeffrey’s genome through my mgh study with george church and he’s fine with it.” Church approved the arrangement and would coordinate moving Epstein’s samples — DNA and cell lines — from the PGP to the new MGH study.
Kahn’s closing reply executes: “Jeffrey has approved the 11,400. Please send me an invoice so work can begin immediately.” The amount escalated from the initial $5,000 to $11,400 — consistent with Illumina’s whole-genome sequencing cost. Epstein’s accountant at HBRK Associates was the financial executor. The pattern matches the investment vehicle formation five months later: as Darren Indyke handled entity formation in August 2014, Rich Kahn at HBRK handled the genome sequencing purchase in March 2014. Epstein’s personal biological program ran through dedicated administrative infrastructure.
What this establishes: The privacy architecture around Epstein’s genome sequencing was deliberate, jointly designed between Epstein and Thakuria, approved by George Church, and financially executed through Epstein’s accountant Rich Kahn at HBRK Associates — with explicit instruction to begin work immediately upon payment.
What this does not establish: The specific content of what Epstein and Thakuria discussed about the purpose of the genomic data. Whether Church knew about the personal reproductive dimension of the program. That the iPS cells were used for any application beyond standard research.
April–June 2014 — “Cloning Updates” and the YPO Genome Dataset
With Epstein’s iPS cell lines already in storage and his genome sequencing already in the pipeline under a private research routing, the spring of 2014 adds two further layers.
In April, Richard Merkin asks Epstein in passing: “Where are you? Any cloning updates?” — casual small talk, one year after Epstein introduced him to Church on human genome engineering.
In late June, the biological sampling was still active. On a Saturday — June 21 or 28, 2014 — Thakuria met Epstein in person and collected a fresh saliva sample. The same week, Kahn was dispatched to send a $2,000 FedEx check to Thakuria’s home address to cover two exomes: $1,000 for the saliva sample just collected, and $1,000 for exome sequencing of the fibroblast cell lines already in storage. Thakuria confirmed in writing that the money would go directly to sequencing costs, and that his own work remained pro bono.
This places active face-to-face biological sample collection in the same four-week window as the Church $10M investment pitch (July 10–13, 2014). The two tracks — personal biological program and formal investment solicitation — were converging in real time.
A further detail in this thread is notable for the timeline it extends. Kahn forwarded this exchange to Epstein’s personal Gmail on May 27, 2015 — nearly a year after the original thread — under the subject line “Please RESPOND ASAP.” Something in the Thakuria pipeline was still unresolved in mid-2015. The article’s current documentation of the Thakuria program ends with the March 2014 HBRK payment; the May 2015 forward indicates the operational relationship continued well beyond that date.
In June, Thakuria contacts Groff about a separate but parallel program: Epstein had committed to fund genome sequencing for 80+ members of the Young Presidents’ Organization (YPO) from the Austin chapter at $1,000 each. Thakuria was now seeking Epstein’s permission to transfer his existing HMS/PGP samples into this expanded study and pursuing his full whole-genome sequencing through Illumina at approximately $11,000.
Epstein’s instruction: “Mine first the fund.” Sequence his genome first, then fund the broader study. Thakuria assured that data privacy would be managed, confirmed Epstein was enrolled unconditionally — “He’s in regardless” — and noted that the bioinfo platform cost the same whether running one sample or one hundred.
What this establishes: The spring of 2014 finds Epstein’s personal biological program (iPS cells in storage, genome sequencing in progress under a private research routing) running simultaneously with a funded genomic database of over 80 elite executives. The personal and the institutional were not separate tracks — they ran through the same Church-affiliated researcher, the same MGH infrastructure, and the same PGP sample pipeline.
July 10–13, 2014 — Church Pitches a $10M Biotech Portfolio
Three months after Merkin asked casually for “cloning updates,” the intellectual relationship between Epstein and George Church moved to a new register: formal investment solicitation.
On July 10, Epstein writes to Church: “I have a great idea. lets speak today if possible.” They connect. Three days later, on July 11, Church sends Epstein a detailed, itemized $10 million investment portfolio proposal for what he refers to as “the SIOM.” He opens:
“Many thanks for your very encouraging words yesterday morning. This is already a super interesting experiment (even with $0 spent), since I am looking at my whole ecosystem of companies and unassigned inventions totally differently. Eye-opening to see how accustomed one can become to the assumptions, whims and rules of VCs.”
Epstein has evidently signaled investment intent significant enough to reframe how Church views his entire portfolio.
The proposed $10 million allocation, as specified in the document:
eGenesisBio ($1.5M) — CRISPR engineering of animals to resist infectious diseases and serve as transplant organ donors for humans, co-founded with Prashant Mali and Luhan Yang. This company subsequently became a significant force in xenotransplantation research.
Aging reversal ($800K) — using CRISPR and epigenetic reprogramming factors to create human genetic disease models in organoids and reverse aging.
Genome engineering of humans for space ($250K) — seed funding for patent fees, lab tests, and education efforts.
Supercentenarian study ($200K) — genome sequencing of individuals over 110.
Cold-resistant elephants via CRISPR ($200K) — mammoth DNA and human mutations applied to living elephants.
Gene drive pest control ($1M) — described explicitly as using a business model “similar to the relationship between Amyris and the Gates Foundation for manufacturing anti-malaria drugs.”
Sensor-selector technology, protein stability, next-generation pathology (remaining allocation)
$2.5M second tranche — reserved for whichever effort makes best progress first.
The Gates Foundation comparison in item 5 is notable in context: Church is explicitly modeling one of his proposed investments on the same philanthropic-industrial structure this series has documented in relation to Epstein’s work with JPMorgan and Gates — private capital governing public health outcomes through a foundation intermediary.
What this establishes: By July 2014, George Church had moved from intellectual exchange with Epstein to formally soliciting him as a $10 million investor across a portfolio of human genome engineering projects. The relationship was operational at an investment level, not merely conversational.
What this does not establish: That Epstein actually invested — no transaction is confirmed in this document. That any of Church’s portfolio companies received Epstein funding. That Church’s portfolio pitch was connected to Epstein’s personal reproductive ambitions. eGenesisBio and the other companies in this portfolio are legitimate scientific enterprises; the document establishes Epstein’s proximity to and investment interest in the field, not that those companies were vehicles for his personal goals.
A detail from the same month sharpens the context. A September 2014 email chain (EFTA00997325) documents that Epstein was not approaching this pitch as an outside investor conducting arm's-length diligence. James Clement, founder of Androcyte LLC — a supercentenarian longevity genomics company in Church's orbit — had already extended Epstein a 2% advisory equity stake in the company's initial stock, with the other four advisers receiving 1% each. The subsequent exchange, in which Epstein pressed Clement on whether the company had a viable profit model, was not skepticism from a stranger. It was pressure from a stakeholder. By the time Church's $10M portfolio pitch arrived, Epstein was already inside the commercial infrastructure it described.
August 11–25, 2014 — Darren Indyke Forms the Vehicle
The Church investment did not remain at the proposal stage. On August 11, Epstein writes to Church: “lets start on first investment.” Church confirms he will check with the eGenesisBio and “Next generation pathology” teams on readiness, then asks: “What is the next step after that?”
Epstein’s instruction: “decide what you would like to call your investment co.”
Church proposes three names — Revenesis.com (for “Regenesis ventures,” drawn from his book title), Transvenesis.com, and Georgarage.com, noting that DIYBio hackers and investors at Google Sci-foo that weekend had spontaneously suggested a “George’s Garage” newsletter concept. Epstein selects “george gaage” and then copies a third party: Darren Indyke, Epstein’s longtime attorney and financial executor, writing: “if ok with you I will form and get documents to you. Darren the lawyer is copied on this email.” Church: “Sure. Thanks.”
On August 25, Epstein sends a brief closing update to Church: “co formed not we have to invest” — meaning the legal entity has been established; the capital deployment is the remaining step.
Darren Indyke is not incidental. He served as Epstein’s primary legal and financial executor for decades, was named in civil litigation related to Epstein’s estate, and signed Epstein’s will. His appearance as the attorney tasked with forming Church’s investment vehicle places the genome engineering relationship inside Epstein’s formal legal-financial apparatus — not a private conversation, but a structured transaction with counsel engaged.
What this establishes: Epstein’s attorney was engaged to legally form an investment entity for George Church’s human genome engineering portfolio. The company was formed. The investment was initiated.
What this does not establish: Whether the investment capital was actually transferred. Which of Church’s portfolio companies received funding. The ultimate fate of the entity or the investment relationship.
December 2013 — Joi Ito Routes Church Personnel Intelligence to Epstein
Eight months before the $10M pitch, Joi Ito — then Director of the MIT Media Lab — forwards Epstein a confidential internal email from Ed Boyden asking Church for private faculty candidate recommendations. Church’s response identifies his top researchers, including Prashant Mali and Luhan Yang, described as “prime movers on Human genome editing (CRISPR) and human organoids.” Mali and Yang are the co-founders of eGenesisBio — the $1.5M lead item in Church’s pitch to Epstein the following July.
Ito is routing Epstein internal intelligence on the field’s top human genome editing personnel, from a confidential hiring process, eight months before Church made his $10M pitch. Epstein was being kept informed of the cutting edge of Church’s lab through the director of the MIT Media Lab.
What this establishes: Epstein had visibility into Church’s top human genome editing researchers — including the founders of the company that would lead Church’s investment pitch — through Joi Ito, months before the formal investment solicitation.
What this does not establish: That Ito knew about Epstein’s cloning ambitions. That Epstein’s receipt of this information was related to the investment process rather than general interest. The nature of the Ito-Epstein relationship beyond this exchange.
In January 2015, Epstein forwards to a redacted recipient an extended essay he attributes to George Church, under the subject line: “my friend george.”
The essay, written in Church’s voice, is a dense philosophical treatment of human-machine hybrids, brain copying, cognitive enhancement, and the future trajectory of human evolution. It addresses human cloning explicitly as a reference point — describing it as “far more radical than human cloning, yet does not involve embryos” in the context of a broader argument about brain copying as a path to digital continuity of identity. The essay argues that hybrid brain architecture may be “not only more likely, but also safer” than either purely silicon intelligence or continued reliance on unenhanced biological cognition.
The framing Epstein chooses — “my friend george” — signals an ongoing personal and intellectual relationship, not a casual acquaintance.
What this establishes: As of January 2015, Epstein was actively circulating Church’s transhumanist writings to his network, with Church identified as a personal friend. The intellectual framework Church articulates in the essay — human enhancement, brain copying, cloning as a comparison benchmark — is consistent with the interests Epstein expressed directly in his other correspondence.
July 1, 2017 — Still Enrolled: The Harvard PGP Newsletter
Three years after the Thakuria thread and one year before the Bishop program, Epstein received a routine institutional newsletter from the Harvard Personal Genome Project addressed to him as an enrolled participant. The newsletter’s subject line: “Personal Genome Project - Updated phenotype ranking, neurodiversity and more!”
The document confirms Epstein’s PGP enrollment was not a one-time 2014 transaction. He was an active, maintained participant in Church’s flagship genomic research program as late as July 2017 — receiving institutional communications, being offered discounted whole-genome sequencing, and participating in phenotype ranking among the project’s participant cohort.
The newsletter’s content is notable in context. Among the items: a story about Veritas Genetics — a PGP spinoff — now offering newborn genome sequencing in China, reporting on 950 disease risks, 200 drug-reaction genes, and more than 100 predicted physical traits. A George Church quote on sequencing technology. A PGP-Lumosity cognitive research study invitation. And a $999 discounted whole-genome sequencing offer to PGP participants through Veritas.
Epstein was receiving all of this as a participant — not as a donor, funder, or outside observer, but as someone whose own genetic data was enrolled in the project and whose phenotype ranking was being updated quarterly.
What this establishes: Epstein’s participation in Church’s Personal Genome Project was sustained, active, and maintained from at least 2014 through 2017 — bridging the gap between his 2014 genomic enrollment and his 2018 designer baby investment. His own genetic profile was an ongoing subject of institutional tracking inside Harvard’s primary genomics research program throughout this period.
What this does not establish: What specific data Epstein contributed to the PGP between 2014 and 2017. Whether his participation was connected to his private reproductive ambitions or was maintained as standard research enrollment.
The gap between the 2014 investment pitch and the 2017 PGP newsletter was not a dormant period. In July 2015, Boris Nikolic — already documented in Epstein's network through the 2012 SIOM thread and later named in Epstein's will — wrote to Epstein while in the middle of closing a CRISPR/Cas9 investment round, describing demand as "mind-blowing how hot" with investor interest exceeding five times the round size (EFTA02493205). The exchange was primarily logistical, but its significance is positional: at the precise moment CRISPR investment fever peaked, Epstein was a routine correspondent of one of biotech's most connected capital allocators. He was not peripheral to the commercial environment surrounding the technology his genome engineering investments were built on.
July 2016 — “Ubermensch”: Epstein’s Eugenic Framework
By 2016, Epstein was corresponding with Joscha Bach — a cognitive scientist and AI researcher — on the subject of learning mechanisms and race. Bach’s email contains explicit race-IQ claims: that “races with faster motor development have lower IQ,” and that Black children in the United States “lag behind (and never catch up) in cognitive development even after controlling for family income.”
Epstein’s response does not dispute this framing. He engages with it and proposes a concept:
“what i like is the idea that ubermensch could be the melding of humans, put together in one brain an increased motor system, an increased awareness, an increased status calculator., (blacks jews, women) ubermensch could be the combination of the best of humans not the best of a specific race or gender. fun idea. we can call it super intelligence. or uberintelligence”
The framing is transhumanist rather than racially purist in its explicit form — Epstein presents synthesis across groups rather than selection within one. But the document is significant for what it reveals about the ideological context of his genome engineering interests: Epstein engaged with race-hierarchy arguments without disputing them, named specific groups in the context of genetic optimization, and used the term “ubermensch” as a working concept two years before agreeing to fund a human cloning company.
The Church-Merkin-Bishop pipeline was not built in an ideological vacuum.
What this establishes: Epstein expressed eugenic-adjacent thinking in his private correspondence, engaged with race-hierarchy arguments from his correspondents, and framed human genetic enhancement in terms of assembling optimal traits across named demographic groups.
What this does not establish: That Epstein’s genome engineering investments were motivated by racial eugenics specifically, rather than transhumanist enhancement goals more broadly. That Bach’s claims reflect scientific consensus — they do not.
October 31, 2018 — Barnaby Marsh Routes a Church Student
On October 31, 2018 — simultaneous with the active Bishop designer baby and cloning operation — Barnaby Marsh forwards Epstein a note from Jay Lee (Lee Je Hyuk), describing him as “one of george church’s students” with “a very good creative mind and is not afraid to break rules... rare.” Marsh flags him as a potential introduction: “let me know if you want to meet him sometime.” Marked confidential.
Lee’s email describes a cancer detection patent and a genome sequencing cost reduction technology. Jay Lee is the same researcher Church had listed for Joi Ito in December 2013 as one of his top postdocs — “In situ Sequencing — the basis for much of Rosetta BRAIN” — and the same researcher included in Church’s $10M pitch portfolio item 7 (”Next generation pathology”).
Barnaby Marsh had been in Epstein’s network since at least 2010 — the earlier document noting a conversation about “genius...and eugenics.”
What this establishes: As late as October 2018, while the Bishop operation was active, Epstein was receiving referrals from Church’s network through Barnaby Marsh — the same intermediary associated with earlier eugenics-adjacent social conversations. The Church talent pipeline remained open and active throughout the Bishop period.
What this does not establish: That Lee knew about or was being considered for any role in the cloning program. That Marsh knew about the Bishop operation.
July 19–20, 2018 — The Introduction
Austin Hill — co-founder of Blockstream, one of the most significant early Bitcoin infrastructure companies, and founder of Brudder Ventures — emails Epstein on July 19 to introduce Bryan Bishop, a biohacker and former senior engineer at LedgerX, the first CFTC-regulated Bitcoin clearinghouse.
The stated reason: cryptocurrency regulation and market disruption. The first meeting — “Financial markets & cryptocoins with Jeffrey, Bryan” — is held the following day at appear.in/internetmagicalmoney.
Bishop’s introductory email includes a project overview he had “prepared for someone else.” The filename: thiel-notes.txt.
Bishop describes his evolving skepticism of regulatory enforcement: “I sincerely wonder whether regulators are anymore able to regulate or enforce the law in these markets.”
The designer baby pitch followed 24 hours later.
July 21–23, 2018 — The Investment Pitch
Bishop emails Epstein with a designer baby pitch deck and a specific framing:
“I think that one way this could be done is under the banner of my designer babies project, since the other deliverable is similar and shares so many of the same procedures and lab requirements. This might offer a sufficient level of deniability.”
Epstein replies the same evening:
“im traveling in mid east until the 1st. lets do it after that, i have no issue with investing the problem is only if i am seen to lead.”
Bishop responds with the required financial architecture — absolute anonymity, financial structure “designed with these details in mind.” Epstein: “i cant program but iam not bad at structuring :)”
July 23: Bishop proposes August 2 at 4pm. Epstein: “Yes”
August 2, 2018 — The Meeting
Epstein sends himself a calendar alert at 7:54 PM:
August 2, 2018 4:00 PM: Designer babies (Bryan Bishop)
Agenda: Designer babies, structuring, finance, privacy, project goals, feasible outcomes, timelines
We will use appear.in (https://appear.in/taxmastergenetics)
August 5–16, 2018 — The Budget
EFTA01003966 / EFTA_R1_01794852 (EFTA02604748)
Three days after the meeting, Bishop sends the document Epstein had requested: a “use of funds” spreadsheet for “the designer baby and human cloning company.”
“This gets us out of our self-funded ‘garage biology’ phase to the first live birth of a human designer baby, and possibly a human clone, within 5 years. Once we reach the first birth, everything changes and the world will never be the same again, much less the future of the human species.”
Budget: approximately $9.5 million over five years ($1.7M/year + $1M lab setup).
Epstein’s reply: “no rush”
On August 16, Bishop follows up after returning from Lithuania, where he had met Simon Black — founder of Sovereign Man, the flagship platform for offshore asset structuring and regulatory arbitrage for high-net-worth individuals.
August 30, 2018 — Lab Briefing
EFTA_R1_01837436 (EFTA02625486)
Bishop updates Epstein on the Ukraine-based surgical laboratory: ongoing mouse surgeries and microinjection, human sperm modification experiments by an unnamed Mississippi contact that “doesn’t work for my purposes yet.”
Epstein, earlier in the thread: “i like implant embryo, wait 9 months. great ending”
October 16–17, 2018 — Legal Architecture
Epstein: “we need to get a read on legal. first. cant do anything where US rules apply to us citizens regardless of where.”
Bishop’s detailed response outlines three legal workaround pathways: confine US activity to R&D and animal testing; route human application through overseas medical tourism partnerships; sell additive DNA to overseas clinics as a supplier rather than practitioner. On the Tokyo investors: “I have to really decide are they the right partners.” Epstein’s advice: “i dont think you have enough info to decide whether these partners are good or bad” — investor coaching, not concern.
November 26, 2018 — Competitive Intelligence
On the day He Jiankui’s CRISPR babies became a global scandal, Bishop briefs Epstein on the Chinese technique’s failure (high mosaicism) and his own team’s superior approach — an embryo editing technique “more similar to cloning which does not require an injection to the biodad.” The overseas lab reporting 5% mouse transfection efficiency. Epstein: “great”
What the Full Record Establishes
1. Epstein’s interest in cloning was not born in 2018. It was sustained for at least seven years.
The George Church correspondence in November 2011 places Epstein in active, knowing engagement with cloning research — asking a leading geneticist directly whether the cloning issue gave him pause, receiving an affirmative “working toward this goal” response, and deliberately offering to manage Church’s reputational exposure. By 2014, the subject was casual small talk with a major healthcare executive. By 2018, Epstein had found a practitioner willing to take $9.5 million to attempt it.
2. George Church confirmed active work toward a goal in this space in response to Epstein’s direct cloning question.
This does not establish that Church’s work was funded by Epstein or that Church knew of or participated in Epstein’s private ambitions. It establishes that by 2011, the two men had an established enough relationship on this subject that Church answered the question directly and substantively, framed it as needing time and funding, and separately told Epstein he was spending December fundraising for PersonalGenomes.org’s cloning and genome engineering work.
3. Richard Merkin treated “cloning updates” as casual conversation by 2014.
This normalizes Epstein’s cloning interest within his associate network years before the Bishop relationship.
4. The Church commercial relationship and the Bishop operational track ran concurrently, not sequentially. The documents in Part 10 of this series establish that Epstein held equity in a Church-network CRISPR company, received a formal investment pitch from Church for eGenesis, and was credited by Martin Nowak — a senior evolutionary biologist at Harvard — with personally inducing a collaboration between Nowak's group and Church's lab on CRISPR gene drive technology (EFTA00707374, April 2017). That attribution — "the collaboration with george church was induced by you!!" — places Epstein not merely as a funder or observer but as a catalyst of scientific collaboration in one of the most governance-sensitive domains of genetic engineering. When Bishop arrived in July 2018, Epstein was not a novice entering an unfamiliar field through a new broker. He was a multi-year equity holder and collaboration architect in the same scientific ecosystem Bishop was proposing to exploit.
5. The 2018 Bishop relationship was operational from first contact.
Investment interest within 24 hours of introduction. A formal meeting with a logged agenda three weeks later. A budget for a human cloning company four days after that. A legal architecture for evading US jurisdiction three months later. An overseas lab operating throughout.
6. Epstein functioned as an active investor and advisor throughout.
“No rush” on a $9.5 million human cloning budget. Investor coaching on the Tokyo capital question. Structural expertise offered. Enthusiasm expressed at each technical milestone.
What These Documents Do Not Establish
That George Church’s work was funded by or connected to Epstein’s private program.
That “the other deliverable” in Bishop’s pitch was definitively Epstein’s personal reproduction — this remains a supported inference from context.
What Richard Merkin knew or participated in beyond the single exchange.
What Austin Hill knew about the human cloning dimension of the project.
What was discussed between Bishop and Simon Black in Lithuania.
What Peter Thiel’s response to Bishop’s project overview was.
That any human embryo was created, edited, cloned, or implanted.
That any financial transaction was completed.
That any activity was illegal in the relevant jurisdictions at the time.
The Architecture Signature
This series has documented, across every installment, the same operational pattern: private actors shaping significant outcomes through structures designed to minimize accountability and ensure deniability. The germline program is structurally identical to the financial vehicles documented elsewhere: anonymous investment, offshore routing, regulatory arbitrage, deniability by design.
What the full eight-year record adds is temporal depth. This was not an impulsive project. It was a sustained intellectual and operational interest, nurtured through relationships with leading scientists, normalized among associates, and ultimately translated — through a Bitcoin-community broker, a biohacker with a Ukraine lab, and a formal company structure — into a funded program aimed at the first live birth of a genetically modified or cloned human being.
The man who spent eight years asking scientists about cloning, who built financial vehicles specifically to govern biology at scale, and who in 2018 agreed to be the anonymous first investor in a human cloning company — structured to evade US law, funded at $9.5 million, with a five-year timeline to what Bishop called the moment when “the world will never be the same again” — was the same man whose dinner party aspirations the New York Times described, in 2019, as far-fetched conversation with no evidence of fruition.
The evidence of fruition is in the documents — and so is the network that made them possible.
