STAT1201 - Paper review Ethics component This interventional study was double-blind and placebo-controlled, measuring the craving for cannabis after Brief Behavioural Therapy for Insomnia (BBTI) on trauma-related subjects. Researchers concluded that there was no evidence (P=0.152) to support that the average daily cannabis usage differed between the treatment group and waitlist-control group. Although the study includes some unethical procedures, we deem the conducted study to be ethically sound. The first unethical concern identified was obtaining full consent from the subjects. It was stated that participants provided written, informed consent, suggesting individuals partaking in this clinical trial were in a stable mental state to be making informed decisions and provide consent over their wellbeing - with a full understanding of the risks involved. However, vulnerable groups who lack the ability to fully consent to participate in a study (University of Virginia, n.d.) - such as traumatised cannabis addicts, would not follow these consent guidelines. It can be assumed patients would be mentally incompetent to make rational decisions thus, inflicting the ethical dilemma of conducting experimentation on susceptible and vulnerable individuals. To comply with ethical procedures, the consent process can be made continuous - reaffirming with participants that they would like to continue with the study if they regain competence. Additionally, it would maintain good ethical regulations to gain the consent of the patient alongside a legal representative (Pattanayak et al., 2017). Secondly, when conducting experiments on vulnerable populations such as addicts, the ethical issue of causing further harm to their pre-existing conditions arises. In this study, it was noted that individuals who were experiencing severe substance abuse disorders were excluded from testing. The dismissal of patients is deemed unethical as it could lead to numerous adverse effects such as the reluctance to seek further rehabilitation, an increase in drug dependence, and serious health detriments. Patients were also at risk of further harmful effects on their condition however, researchers outlined the risks within the consent form, improving the procedures to consist of ethical standards. Alternatively, this study can be commended for its adherence to ethical guidelines. The experiment was conducted with an adequate sample size consisting of an even ratio of sexes, indicating less variability within observed and recorded results with fewer outliers - providing a more accurate representation. Likewise, the age bracket from 18-30 years old demonstrates an ethically conscious decision to not conduct tests on the underdeveloped brains of younger addicts. This study was also conducted in collaboration with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) with the procedures used being approved by Florida State University's institutional review board, thus verifying the methodology of the study to be ethical. Finally, the use of placebo control allows for effective comparisons to be drawn between individuals in both groups. Our final appraisal of this study is that it conforms to scientific ethical standards. The points of ethical conflict concerning the treatment and consent of vulnerable addicts were outweighed as researchers followed ethically sound procedures such as the use of a control group,