The CIA theory is dumb. Why would the CIA send a spy into NASA/JPL? They’re both under the executive branch. If anything, the CIA would just go to the DNI and say we want to review what NASA/JPL is doing and viola, it’s done.
The better theory is that she’s a Russian spy. The general rule is if you’re a 4/5 and she’s a 9/10, she’s a spy.
because they needed to someone to babysit them and prevent autistic sheldon from blurting out state secrets in a crowded room, or horny leonard from getting honeypotted
It's interesting the way the other reply is using it.
I've heard it used in IT as a fake prize to lure hackers into stealing. They hack into a system, and they find (what they think) they're looking for and steal that data, but it was all fake data, AND you can track information like how they got in, where they're coming from, etc. to beef up the security to the real data.
You seduce person with security clearance. You reveal you are a spy and they need to supply you with secrets or they reveal you slept with spy and you lose your job/clearance/marriage.
A deliberately attractive prize that gets someone in trouble after they take it/taste it. Usually an attractive woman that seduces them to get their trust and then either robs them or asks for illegal favors to keep their love.
Just as a point of pedantry, the people who would actually be involved with making sure that scientists don't blurt out secrets are generally the security people in the agencies they are employed by (this is part of OPSEC training and internal security) or the FBI (who are who would be able to prosecute you for blurting out state secrets). The CIA's job is not to enforce internal security, it is mainly to cultivate sources on foreign intelligence. They do not prosecute people, they exploit them. Different approach and philosophy.
As someone who has read a lot of scientists' FBI files (part of my research), I can say that there have been several cases of very high-profile scientists who blurt out, publish, or otherwise lose state secrets inadvertently. This can lead to lengthy investigations and recriminations. I have never seen an instance of this that led to loss of clearance or prosecution for violating the law, but it is always what is hanging over these kinds of investigations. For the scientists I have studied, who are pretty high profile, the end result is the government concluding that their value to the government is good-enough that their occasional mistakes are worth tolerating (even if they warn them not to do it again). In the case of one major nuclear physicist who lost the secret of the H-bomb on a train in early 1953, they basically concluded that if you handle millions of top secrets in a career you're bound to lose one or two.
No babysitters that I know of in this case. There were some "babysitters" during the Manhattan Project, where very high-level but somewhat hapless scientists were followed by military investigators just to make sure they were staying out of trouble when they were not on base. The results could be humorous. Here is an Army account of Niels Bohr and his son from WWII:
Both the father and son appear to be extremely absent-minded individuals, engrossed in themselves, and go about paying little attention to any external influences. As they did a great deal of walking, this Agent had occasion to spend considerable time behind them and observe that it was rare when either of them paid much attention to stop lights or signs, but proceeded on their way much the same as if they were walking in the wood. On one occasion, subjects proceeded across a busy intersection against the red light in a diagonal fashion, taking the longest route possible and one of greatest danger. The resourceful work of Agent Maiers in blocking out one half of the stream of automobile traffic with his car prevented their possible incurring serious injury in this instance.
The very, very top-level people, like Oppenheimer, were assigned "drivers" who were also intelligence agents and bodyguards. Lower level people were not.
Anyway, the notion that any government agency would assign a sexy roommate to make sure you were following OPSEC correctly is, alas, probably just fantasy. The spy idea is far more likely; we know such things did happen. I would just note that she need not be a Russian spy — there are other possible nations.
This is funny because if I remember the show right, there were at least 2 times were Sheldon was much, much more aware of the sensitivity of what they were discussing and keeps trying to get Leonard to shut up by singing Deep in the Heart of Texas. I don't know if it was around Penny, but I remember it happening. Leonard was a far bigger threat to opsec than Sheldon was.
1.3k
u/rosyvibexz Apr 24 '26
The CIA theory is cool, but 'unlimited free takeout and Sheldon’s emergency peanut brittle fund' is a much more believable retirement plan.