Chinese Academy of Sciences Researcher Resigns After Extramarital Affair Leads to Miscarriage and Disciplinary Probation

Zhang, an associate researcher at the Institute of Process Engineering, reportedly began a relationship with Ms Zhao in 2022. According to the woman, she was led to believe that Zhang was single; she only learned that he was married after she suffered a miscarriage. The pregnancy, which lasted several months, ended abruptly in early 2025, leaving Ms Zhao with severe depression and a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder. She says the loss of the unborn child and the emotional turmoil that followed have left her scarred both physically and mentally.

The Institute received a formal complaint about Zhang’s conduct in late February 2025. An internal investigation was launched immediately, and in May the institute’s disciplinary committee placed Zhang under a Party disciplinary probation, commonly referred to as “留党察看.” The following month, Zhang was demoted from associate researcher to assistant researcher. On 30 June 2025, he tendered his resignation, acknowledging his wrongdoing and expressing regret in a brief statement to the media outlet Jimu News (极目新闻).

Public reaction on Weibo has been overwhelmingly negative toward Zhang. Users have denounced his betrayal of both his wife and Ms Zhao, describing his actions as irresponsible and harmful. Many have called for a public apology and financial compensation for the miscarriage, arguing that the disciplinary measures—though swift—should have been harsher given the gravity of the personal damage caused. A portion of the commentary, however, has questioned whether Ms Zhao was aware of Zhang’s marital status, suggesting a shared responsibility. Still, the dominant narrative frames her as a victim of deception, emphasizing the power imbalance between a respected academic and an ordinary citizen.

The episode has ignited a broader conversation about the ethical expectations placed on scholars and researchers in China’s most prestigious institutions. While the misconduct was personal, observers argue that it reflects on the reputation of CAS, an organization that enjoys considerable public trust and enjoys substantial state support. The institute’s decision to investigate, discipline and ultimately accept Zhang’s resignation is being cited as evidence that even high‑ranking scientists are not immune to accountability, a point that resonates with officials seeking to bolster public confidence in state‑affiliated bodies.

Beyond the immediate fallout, the case highlights several systemic issues. First, it underscores the need for clearer ethical guidelines that extend into employees’ private lives, especially when personal conduct can erode public trust in scientific institutions. Second, it raises questions about the adequacy of internal support mechanisms for both victims of personal scandal and for staff navigating complex interpersonal relationships. Finally, the incident may prompt tighter screening and character assessments during recruitment, as institutions aim to protect their reputations while safeguarding the welfare of those who may become entangled with their employees.

The story has been amplified by traditional media coverage and trending hashtags on Weibo, where users continue to debate the propriety of the disciplinary actions and the broader moral implications of the affair. While the headline “CAS employee resigns after affair leads to woman’s miscarriage” captures the core facts, many commenters noted that the original Chinese phrasing—“中科院员工出轨女子致其流产已离职”—was confusing and required clarification.

Ms Zhao’s decision to speak out has attracted sympathy from those who see her as a representative of countless women who suffer in silence after being misled by married partners. Her ongoing calls for accountability echo a growing demand in Chinese society for transparency and justice in cases where personal misconduct collides with professional prestige. As discussions continue, the episode serves as a cautionary tale about the intersection of personal ethics, institutional responsibility, and the ever‑watchful eye of public opinion.