a record number of migrants sought jobs in cities only to return home, according to Gavekal, a research firm. Among them is Mr Li, who drives a cab in Shenzhen. He intends to retire and return to Hunan province, hundreds of kilometres to the north, later this year. The economy there is even rougher, but prices are much lower. With the money he has saved over the past decade in Shenzhen the hope is that he has no trouble becoming a rural resident once more. ■ Subscribers can sign up to Drum Tower, our new weekly newsletter, to understand what the world makes of China—and what China makes of the world. This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com//china/2026/06/11/in-china-ride-hailing-work-is-a-last- resort-for-rural-labourers
A dropout-turned-influencer shakes up Chinese science Fraud is rampant—but his videos mean everyone is now talking about it June 11th 2026 HE HARDLY SEEMS the guy to shake China’s scientific establishment. Geng Hongwei is a PhD dropout-turned-influencer. He posts technical videos for a general audience, leavened with cartoon memes. But in April his words, aimed at cancer researchers at a top Chinese university, triggered an earthquake. “I hope you’ll take academic fraud more seriously in the future,” he deadpanned, before demonstrating that the scientists had faked their data—and clumsily. Two months later the aftershocks are still being felt. It was the first in a series of videos by Mr Geng detailing academic misdeeds. His revelations have cost three universities their life-science deans and raised questions
about how much fraud lurks in Chinese research. He has also revealed something about Communist Party rule: despite its obsession with control, space for criticism of institutions occasionally still opens. It is tough to know in advance how far one can push, and Mr Geng himself seems to be bumping into limits. On a recent morning Chaguan spoke to Mr Geng. From his home in Siping, a rustbelt city in China’s north-east, he explained how he became a science whistleblower. Stuck in his dorm during the covid-19 pandemic and eager to make money, he started dabbling in social media. He called his account “Classmate Geng”, or Geng Tongxue, as he is known today, and posted videos that resembled chats with university pals: about new research, grad- student life and annoying supervisors. He started to amass followers. The son of a poor migrant worker and saddled with debt, Mr Geng is admirably forthright. His doctorate had him on track for a “mediocre” job at a basic wage. Revenues from social media promised more. “I just wanted my own life to be better,” he says. Mr Geng has honed his instinct for topics that play well online. When he came across a paper with dubious figures in April he publicised it. The paper was produced by a team under the life-sciences dean at Shanghai’s Tongji University, a top institution. The research on slowing cancer growth had received national funding. And it appeared in Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious journals, headquartered in London. But the fabrication seemed laughable, including a column of data points ending exactly in “5”. “It was a high-level paper and a low-level fraud, a contrast that makes for great content,” says Mr Geng. “As the story spread, I began to wonder, could this have an impact on the research world? It started to acquire higher meaning.” One video led to another. He documented similar problems with suspicious data and images in work by other leading cancer researchers. Their papers had appeared in various sister journals of Nature. Many of the authors had received national awards and hefty public grants. As Mr Geng puts it, he is less a whistleblower than an amplifier. Some allegations had previously surfaced on PubPeer, an international website for
anonymous reviews of academic work. But they had attracted little attention in China. Mr Geng made them go viral. He is not operating alone. Others have fed him tips and helped probe the questionable research. With his videos attracting millions of views, officials find it difficult to ignore them. At least three institutions—Tongji University, Nankai University and Sun Yat-sen University—have conducted investigations. Finding irregularities, they have removed deans from their leadership posts, though they let them stay in lesser roles. For many in Chinese science the sudden focus on fraud has been shocking yet unsurprising. Many have long known of wrongdoing but have looked past it as China has catapulted past America to lead the world in scientific publications. Mr Geng’s status as a dropout affords him some freedom. He has emboldened others. Rao Yi, a veteran scientist, said in a speech last month that China merited two world records: for its scientific progress and for its academic misconduct. Fraud is a global scourge. But Mr Rao argued that the proportion of bad work in China is exceptionally high. Mr Geng puts the figure at roughly one in ten papers by distinguished scholars. Partly, this may be the price of speed. Having grown so quickly, China lacks the guardrails of more mature science powers. Yet the explanation is also structural. Promotions and funding depend on the volume of published papers, incentivising quantity over rigour. Rewards for hitting certain targets are often more explicit than in the West, including cash bonuses and even housing allowances. Research groups built around a single academic star can house hundreds of scholars—easily ten times the size of most Western labs. The government has been calling for greater quality in China’s scientific output, which is why a critic like Mr Geng is useful. Xinhua, the state news agency, published an interview with him, a sign of official support. Some policymakers hope he is a catalyst for change, including stricter verification of results. Yet the state’s enthusiasm for Classmate Geng is finite. In late May video platforms limited the visibility of his new posts. It has been communicated
to him, he hints, that he should return to broader themes. His older relatives think he is courting danger. There is a precedent that should give pause. Fifteen years ago Chinese social media briefly sizzled with citizen-journalists outing corrupt officials. But the party shut them down. It wanted to lead the anti-graft fight itself and was unwilling to let public demands for accountability gather momentum. Science should be harder to corral in that way. It requires open data and external trust that the party cannot simply mandate. Whether that distinction holds will depend on China’s politicians, not its scientists.■ Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence. This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com//china/2026/06/08/a-dropout-turned-influencer-shakes-up- chinese-science
Iran has lost its fear of war How Israel is frustrating Donald Trump’s Iran plans The first-ever robotic rescue at sea is a milestone Syria is an unexpected beneficiary of the Gulf war Could Eritrea come in from the cold? Fighting in Mogadishu risks making a weak state weaker
Middle East & Africa | Rolling the dice Iran has lost its fear of war A once-cautious regime is making a risky bet on low-level conflict June 11th 2026 WHAT was once unthinkable has now become routine. In the past week America and Israel have both bombed Iran, and Iran has downed an American helicopter, fired missiles at Israel and attacked several Arab states. This is fast becoming the region’s new normal. Though a ceasefire of sorts has largely held for more than two months, talks between America and Iran remain at a stalemate and violations are becoming more frequent. Diplomatic deadlock is not the only cause of the volatility. It also reflects an emboldened Islamic Republic. Donald Trump has insisted for months that the regime is desperate for a deal. Instead he has been vexed by an Iran willing to tolerate low-level conflict and risk a return to all-out war. Yet a
newfound fondness for risk is a risk in itself. Iran is wagering that it can deter Israel and coerce Mr Trump into a deal. Both may prove difficult. For decades, Iran’s rulers were cautious about the use of force. A generation forged by the ruinous war against Iraq in the 1980s was determined to keep conflicts away from the country’s borders. Instead the regime cultivated Arab militias such as Hizbullah, a Shia group in Lebanon, as a way to project power across the Middle East without risking direct consequences. Such caution had its critics. When Mr Trump ordered the assassination of a top Iranian general in 2020, for instance, the regime retaliated with a pre- announced barrage of missiles on two American bases in Iraq. Some younger officers in Tehran argued that this was an insufficient response, one that might signal weakness and encourage future American attacks. They were overruled—but many of the leaders who overruled them are now dead. Having endured six weeks of war against two superior foes, Iran’s current rulers are more confident. They believe that Mr Trump has no desire to resume an unpopular war. Periodic attacks on American forces in the Gulf now seem to Iran like a useful source of leverage rather than an unacceptable risk. The change in Iran’s strategic doctrine is most striking in Lebanon. Hizbullah was meant to protect the regime: in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran, the group would unleash its missiles and commandos against Israel. Instead Iran now seeks to protect Hizbullah. In the short term, this will make life more complicated for America and Israel. It underscores how their interests have diverged: Mr Trump’s desire for a deal with Iran is at odds with that of Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, to continue the war in Lebanon. The Iranian regime’s boosters argue that it is a more profound shift: a new balance of power in the region, in which Iran can deter Israeli attacks against third parties. That seems like wishful thinking. Few words are more misused in foreign policy than “deterrence”. To deter an adversary is to dissuade them from taking an action by convincing them that the costs will outweigh the benefits. That is not what has happened over the past week.