Sports science plays a critical role in enhancing athletes’ competitive performance and safeguarding their health. Systematic data monitoring and precise analysis can be used to help athletes make effective and science-based training adjustments to improve their speed, explosiveness, muscle strength, aerobic endurance and agility, thereby enhancing overall competitiveness.
The controversial research project at National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) — in which current and former members of the women’s soccer team revealed they were coerced into giving blood samples three times per day for periods of 14 days over the course of several years and threatened with failure should they refuse to comply — was originally intended to fulfill this mission, helping athletes grow and achieve breakthroughs in performance.
However, upon reading the reports published by project leader Chen Chung-ching (陳忠慶), long-time women’s varsity soccer coach Chou Tai-ying (周台英), associate professor Tseng Wei-chin (曾暐晉) and others at NTNU, I felt disappointed and concerned. Despite the research projects being carried out over a span of five years — from 2019 to last year — they lacked evidence of any significant improvements in key physical performance indicators among the subjects and provide no timely or actionable training feedback.
Such insufficient outcomes highlight deep-rooted issues in project design, implementation and management, and indicate a serious flaw — an unclear division of responsibilities between the principal investigator and the team responsible for executing research.
In terms of quality and outcomes, Chen’s projects fell short of required standards. There were no reasonable or observable improvements in the athletes’ physical performance indicators, such as speed, explosiveness, muscular strength, aerobic endurance and agility. Furthermore, the projects failed to provide specific and actionable training recommendations. Such poor research results are not only a waste of precious national resources, but an erosion of academic integrity, damaging the hopes of athletes and teams striving to make progress.
With regard to day-to-day execution of the projects, technical operations were primarily handled by graduate students such as Chou and Tseng, who were responsible for their overall implementation. However, research design, project management and supervision should have been part of Chen’s core responsibilities. The roles of the different parties involved in a project should not be obfuscated — excessive pressure and responsibility should never be placed on those responsible for implementation, nor should those team members be made scapegoats for broader failures in leadership and oversight.
Despite delivering poor and underwhelming results, this series of research projects repeatedly received funding from the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), given an annual budget of about NT$9 million (US$301,457). This points to structural issues within the NSTC’s review mechanisms, including a lack of transparency and the presence of conflicts of interest. Conveners of some review committees might have close ties with research teams applying for funding — and thus essentially act as both player and referee — which compromises the fairness and impartiality of the evaluation process. As time has passed, specific cliques have formed within the intellectual community and monopolized research resources, severely hindering the development of cross-disciplinary collaboration with new generations of academics — a phenomenon that has led to a vicious cycle detrimental to the overall research environment in the field of sports science.
The aforementioned issues have dealt a serious blow to the healthy development of sports science and the meaningful development of athletes in Taiwan, giving rise to systemic barriers. There is an urgent need for the authorities to conduct an earnest and thorough review, and implement fundamental reforms to the current review and oversight mechanisms of scientific research projects.
These changes should include, but not be limited to — stricter regulations surrounding conflicts of interest, establishing a more transparent and diverse review process, limiting the number of concurrent projects that can be held by a single principal investigator to prevent repeated applications and a waste of resources, and strictly enforcing research ethics reviews to protect the rights and interests of research subjects. Such measures would ensure that research results are scientifically valuable and practical.
Fundamental and systemic reform is needed to eliminate the vicious cycle of funding misuse followed by poor results in research and development. Only then could we ensure that the nation’s resources are being invested toward research that truly enhances Taiwan’s sports competitiveness. The case of the NTNU women’s soccer team should alarm the sports and academic communities. The authorities must strengthen oversight and accountability, and thoroughly avoid instances of blurred responsibilities and misallocated resources, so that the nation’s future of sports science research can develop in a healthy and positive direction.
Chang Ray-tai is a retired professor of physical education.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS