Proposal One

1. Additional details that may be important to know before choosing whether or not to accept the
study include:
- What steps are being made to guarantee that the participants are not harmed by the
sexually explicit content and that it is age-appropriate?
- What criteria are used in the volunteer recruitment process? Exist any requirements for
exclusion based on prior sex behavior or other characteristics?
- What are the participants' possible risks? For instance, may exposure to pornographic
content result in unfavorable psychological effects like heightened anxiety or
depression?
- What steps are taken to ensure that participants' parents or legal guardians are informed
before they give their consent?
- After the study, will participants receive a debriefing and resources in case any negative
effects occur?
2. Gaining a better understanding of how exposure to sexually explicit media influences adolescent
views regarding sex could be one of the outcomes of this study. This information could influence
sex education initiatives and laws intended to support young people's healthy sexual
development. However, there are possible drawbacks as well, such as the chance of exposing
individuals to offensive material or inciting unfavorable psychological reactions. The study might
potentially unintentionally maintain detrimental attitudes around sex or encourage harmful
stereotypes.
3. My recommendation, if I were on an IERB evaluating this proposal, would depend on the
specifics of the study design and the measures taken to reduce potential hazards. I would want
to make sure that the study is carried out ethically and responsibly, with the necessary
safeguards in place to secure the participants' security and welfare. If these precautions were
found to be sufficient, I would advise allowing the study with the proper oversight and
monitoring to guarantee that it is carried out as intended.

Proposal Two

1. First and foremost, it's crucial to understand whether Pia got the participants' agreement after
providing them with information regarding the study's risks and rewards. The ethics committee
may also want to know how Pia intends to find participants, how she intends to assign them at
random to the music or silence groups, and whether there are any dangers to running for 30
minutes on a treadmill (such as risk of discomfort or injury).
2. The results of this study might have substantial advantages. If Pia discovers that exercising while
listening to music indeed makes people work out harder, this could have useful implications for
creating fitness plans that motivate people to work out harder. It might also shed light on the
psychological processes that drive the motivation to exercise. There could be negative effects of
this research, though. Participants could risk damage, for instance, if Pia does not take the
proper precautions to assure their safety (such as watching over them when they run on the
treadmill). Additionally, psychological effects may result if Pia does not acquire informed
permission or if participants experience pressure to run faster than they are comfortable with.
 3. I would advise Pia to go into greater detail about her plans to ensure participant safety and gain
informed consent if I were on an ethics committee examining this proposal. In order to address
any potential psychological risks, I would also advise that she incorporate a strategy for
debriefing participants at the conclusion of the study. Furthermore, I would want to confirm that
Pia has the requisite training and expertise to carry out this study and that she has obtained all
necessary authorizations from pertinent institutional or regulatory agencies.

Proposal Three

1. The following details might also be required in order to authorize the study:
- How will the study's participants be chosen?
- Which exam results will be utilized to assess pupils' proficiency levels?
- How will it be communicated to the pupils whether they belong to the "gifted" or
"struggling" group?
- How will the study gauge how labeling affects students' academic achievement?
- What moral factors, such as obtaining parents' informed consent and safeguarding
students' privacy, have been taken into account?
2. A deeper comprehension of how labeling influences student accomplishment, which could guide
educational policies and practices, could be one of the advantages of this research. The results of
the study, for instance, might show that designating kids as "gifted" or "struggling" has an
important effect on their drive and self-worth, which might influence the way teachers provide
students feedback and assistance. A self-fulfilling prophesy could be created by this study, which
could lead to discouragement and a student's giving up on studying if they are categorized as
"struggling" students. Long-term effects on their academic and personal development may result
from this.
3. I would suggest that the study be allowed with a few restrictions. These requirements would
include getting parents' informed consent, making sure student privacy is maintained, and
closely observing the study to make sure no students are harmed. The study should also be
planned so that it minimizes any possible hazards to students and maximizes the advantages of
the study. In order to advance our knowledge of how labeling affects student accomplishment,
the study should also be conducted in an ethical and responsible manner.