solved Application of the Belmont Principles First, identify your research topic,

Application of the Belmont Principles
First, identify your research topic, including the key concepts you hope to investigate, any relationship you will look for between or among them—if anticipating a quantitative study—and who you anticipate as the target population.
Then, briefly identify how you would apply the three Belmont principles (beneficence, justice, and respect for persons) when you conduct your study. To better understsnd the report, read the folllwing from the Internet:

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/bel…

Your post will be assessed based on the following:

A thorough and high-quality post will apply one or more of the Belmont principles to all of the following elements of a research design:

How one samples and recruits participants.
How one collects data from those participants.
How one manages, organizes, and conducts analyses of the data.
How one reports the findings.

An acceptable but lower quality post will apply at least one of the Belmont Principles to at least two of the design elements.
A low-quality post will apply a Belmont principle to only one design element.
An unacceptable post will not apply any Belmont principles to any design elements.

THE NEED FOR THE BELMONT REPORT
Throughout its history as a profession, research has provided the foundation for all the theories and clinical practices in our field. However, until the latter part of the 20th century, little guidance was offered to psychologists about their research’s various ethical dimensions and challenges. The first set of ethical standards for psychologists was published only in 1953 by the American Psychological Association, and the section on research ethics (pp. 113–124) provided some general guidance, but little specificity on how to achieve ethical behavior in research.
The section’s six principles were vague and left the interpretation up to the individual researcher. For instance, in Principle 4.11-1, the code states that “the psychologist is responsible within the limits of his [sic] knowledge, experience, and facilities, for planning his research in such a way as to minimize the possibility that his findings will be misleading” (APA, 1953, p. 115). The phrase “within the limits of his knowledge, experience, and facilities” can imply that a researcher needs only operate within his or her own understandings. In Principle 4.12-1, we read, “In the conduct of research the psychologist must adhere to the highest standards, following procedure [sic] judged by him [sic] to be appropriate to the problem on which he is working.” Nowhere are these “higher standards” defined, and indeed, it is the researcher’s judgment whether his procedures are appropriate—regardless, apparently, of how damaging they might be to the participants.
By allowing the psychologist to determine what constitutes misleading findings or appropriate standards for conducting research, researchers whose “knowledge, experience, or facilities” were limited, or whose personal judgment about the appropriateness of their procedures was inadequate or even malfeasant, could end up performing unethical and even damaging research. And indeed, such was the case.
Certainly, everyone could agree that the experiments performed by the Nazi doctors during World War II were evil, but in the absence of an agreed ethical code, it was difficult to argue that the experiments were unethical. This is one of the reasons that the Nuremberg war crimes trials led to a code of ethics, the Nuremberg Code (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1949). But in America, psychologists remained quite free to use their own judgment about the ethicality of their research.
Unfortunately, this led to studies—which we will review in this unit—that harmed their participants. Most of these studies were not intentionally abusive and indeed have led to profound insights into human behavior. However, their publicity led the United States government in 1974 to establish a commission, informally called the Belmont Commission, to review the situations and ultimately to promulgate a set of ethical principles, called the Belmont Report (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1979). Belmont was fleshed out in federal law, 45 CFR 46, governing human participant research. This law defined clearly what is required of ethical researchers and mandated the formation of Institutional Review Boards—often called research review boards—in any organization sponsoring or conducting research.
The Belmont Report provides the basis for all research ethics codes, including the American Psychological Association’s current Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2002, amended 2010). It enunciates three core principles that apply to all elements of a research project: equity or justice, beneficence, and respect for persons.
References
American Psychological Association. (1953). Ethical standards of psychologists.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (n.d.). Nuremberg code. https://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/onli…
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html.
READINGS THAT WILL HELP

Ethics in Mental Health Research. (2015). Case studies. https://sites.google.com/a/narrativebioethics.com/…

Read the following case studies:

”The Tearoom Trade Study.”
“Milgram’s Obedience Studies.”
“The Tuskegee Syphilis Study.”
“Hepatitis Studies at the Willowbrook State School for Children With Mental Retardation.”

Blass, T. (2009). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. Basic Books.

Chapter 5, “Obedience: The Experience,” pages 75–92.
Chapter 6, “Obedience: The Experiment,” pages 93–110.
Chapter 7, “Aftershocks,” pages 111–130.

Zimbardo, P. G. (2015). Stanford prison experiment. http://www.prisonexp.org/
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (n.d.). Nuremberg code. https://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/onli…
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/bel…