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
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS