which is especially important in the case of Genie as she was not able to provide informed consent due to her intellectual disability. Furthermore, it was observed that Genie experienced physical abuse during her confinement at home, so researchers should have ensured that they created an environment in which she felt safe. This could involve providing adequate support services such as psychotherapy or social workers who can help the subject with any psychological issues arising from the study. Finally, given the nature of some of the experiments performed on Genie (such as teaching her sign language), there are concerns about whether these experiments were beneficial for her development or if they merely served as entertainment for those conducting them. In comparison to classic examples of ethically dubious psychological research like Milgram’s learning experiment and Stanford Prison Simulation, there are several key differences regarding ethical considerations applied in each case. In contrast to Milgram’s experiment (which involved administering shocks to participants) and Stanford Prison Simulation (in which participants were exposed to prison-like conditions), none of the tests conducted on Genie posed any risk or harm to her wellbeing physically or psychologically - although this does not necessarily mean that no ethical issues arise from them. In terms of autonomy, the lack of informed consent on behalf of Genie for these tests means that principles around respect for persons must be weighted differently than with experiments where informed consent has been obtained; however this does not necessarily make these tests unethical per se - rather it necessitates careful consideration about how such tests should be structured in order ensure minimal discomfort for subjects whilst still achieving valuable results from a scientific point of view.