A neurological study was conducted over a 6-month period by Deng-Bryant, Yee leung, Madathil, et al. This study sought to investigate the acute neurological ef f ects of repeated concussion on 48 Male adult Sprague-Dawley rats. In order to understand the neurobiology of concussions, Deng-Bryant et al derived a closed-head concussive rat model. This model simulated projectile impact concussion in humans and caused the subject animals to exhibit concussion-like clinical symptoms. The projectile concussive impact (PCI) apparatus consisted of a platform and a computer regulated electro-pneumatic pressure system, which was used to propel a 3.52g steel sphere at the rats' cranium. This was conducted following anesthetization, where the rat was then f i tted with a custom-designed helmet. These rats were subjected to 4 concussive impacts, at 1-hour intervals, to produce concussive symptoms. Following this, the rats were then required to partake in memory retention and working memory tasks at 1 and 6-months post-injury. This resulted in a decreasing trend in working memory function after 1 month (p=0.07) and signif i cantly decreased neurological function 6 months post-injury (p=0.05). I believe that the aforementioned procedures are indicative of ethical scientif i c practices. Dissimilar to other traumatic brain injury (TBI) models which require craniotomy, the PCI model derived for this experiment is non-invasive; therefore, minimizing risk of infection and premature death in subjects. This study was performed in accordance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, NRC Publication, 2011 edition. Furthermore, all experimental procedures were also "approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of Walter Reed Army Institute of Research" (Deng-Bryant, et al, 2019). Although it could be stated that the neurological harm caused to the subject animals perpetuates the experiment as unethical, the Utilitarian perspective refutes such a claim. The consequentialist theory of Utilitarianism justif i es animal experimentation so long as the outcome is objectively benef i cial, making it the normative action of choice (Boylan, 2017, pp. 45). Furthermore, the harm minimization utilized through this experiment reduced any unnecessary trauma. With consideration to this, it would be plausible to denote the f i ndings of this experiment as objectively benef i cial to the general population. An estimated 42 million people worldwide suf f er from a concussion or other forms of mild traumatic brain injury annually. This is an established risk factor for a range of neurodegenerative conditions including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Gardner & Yaf fe, 2015, pp.75). Considering this, I believe the use of animals in this experiment, in a Utilitarian sense, is unequivocally ethical as the results provide us with more information and broadens our understanding of the detriment caused by concussive injuries, in turn allowing further pursuit of treatment for such conditions. Another factor to consider when discussing whether the content of this study was extrapolated ethically is whether any data or information has been subject to fraudulent interference. However, due to the nature of this study, I believe there to be minimal