So our paper actually focuses on the tension between the call to diversify research population, and include underrepresented groups, on the one hand, but on the other hand, the the specific vulnerabilities that might arise in these settings is clinical settings if they are not tailor made for these underrepresented groups. So to explain it very simply, what we see in our study is that merely adding or fixing the numbers is not enough to enhance social justice, we need to do more. And then to summarize what we did. So the main question that we asked in this paper is how does social identity affect the experience of participating in a clinical trial? And what comes up if we look through an intersectional lens? So what we do we do, we analyze interviews with people with neuromuscular diseases who participated in a clinical trial. And his interviews were actually collected in a different setting where no attention was paid to socialist identity factors. In our study, we wondered, what do we see when we closely scrutinized these interviews, looking through such an intersectional lens, in other words, by examining how aspects of diversity and power dynamics shaped the experiences of these respondents, and what came out, and I'm taking quite a shortcut here. But this data actually shows that in clinical trials, that clinical trials do not occur in a social vacuum, but in the context of power dynamics, which can make certain people's specific, more vulnerable to experience research related harms and risks. And in this specific trial, these power dynamics manifested in actually participants at times silencing themselves. And this actually led them to or manifested in them overstepping their physical and emotional boundaries at times. And these aspects, we argue, are quite difficult, difficult to capture in more traditional ethical procedures and guidelines. So that is a short overview. The paper.