I'm lay reader, but I know that ethics is as intellectually consistent a field as econ. When authors include "thorough discussion of ethics", I'd expect to read not just descriptive account & 'RCT held back disconnection..no effect on children health' considerations, but also... https://twitter.com/raulpacheco/status/1292412052963762176

1. How authors know counterfactual (what would have happened w/o the RCT)
2.Referenced discussion of underlying welfare criteria used to evaluate ethics (there is lot of works on utilitarian vs non utilitarian criteria https://events.wharton.upenn.edu/normative-conference/ )

How to characterize ‘non harm’ ? Is it good criterion ?

3.Referenced discussion to political econ of RCT (fi, long-term impact of collaborating w/ govs. Does it strengthen their power or is it neutral?) What’s your status as researcher ? Does your work by design contributes...

.... to spread governmental ideologies as suggested here https://twitter.com/Econ_Marshall/status/1292424315825278977 or here https://twitter.com/Undercoverhist/status/1187391832696786949? Or to nurture international power structures (see https://twitter.com/oyebolaoo/status/1185246409622245377)

I have no opinion on whether it was ethical to carry this RCT, but I have meta-opinion on the type research that should underpin discussion of RCT ethics in development econ papers. Standards should be as strong as those ruling design and data exploitation