Part 1: Ethical Decision Making

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible. Clearly state the ethical issue. 

1. 35% of children in the region suffer from stunted growth
2. Traditional gruel does not provide key nutrients
3. Grant provides sufficient funds
4. Gruel made from corn maize and bananas is introduced at 2 months
5. Pesticides used to grow crops used in the porridge could potentially result in health implications for infants 
6. Many women in the area are HIV positive 
7. Most mothers believe that 24 months of breastfeeding is necessary
8. The longer children breastfeed, the more likely they are to contract HIV. 
9. 500 women from three contiguous sub-locations have indicated their interest in joining the cooperative, in hopes of improving their livelihoods

Step 2 and 3: Define the Stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome and Assess the motivations of the Stakeholders 

1. Mothers and children: primary stakeholders as they are directly affected by nutritional choices.
   1. Motivations:
      1. Mothers wish to provide their children with the most nutritious diet available. Whether that is the combination of breastfeeding and gruel or breastfeeding and porridge.
      2. Mothers do not want to transmit HIV to their children
2. Pesticide Sellers and producers: secondary stakeholder
   1. Motivations: they want to make money and continue selling
3. Healthcare Providers: Those who are treating the women and children in the region. 
   1. Motivations: 
      1. Want to prevent the transmission of HIV, promote healthy infant development, and provide quality care to their community
4. Farmers – Growing the crops used in the porridge
   1. Motivation: 
      1. Want to produce crops and get paid for them
5. Government: departments that might be providing support
   1. Motivation: 
      1. Aim to improve youth and overall well being of the community
6. The funders that sent the grant to start the women’s cooperative
   1. Motivations: don’t want the money to go to waste 

The ethical issue in this case is whether it :  Is it okay to substitute current breastmilk supplements with a new contaminated supplement if it is meant to ultimately decrease children’s exposure to HIV? 

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on information available, using basic ethical core values as guide Approaches [1/2/3: repeat for every action] • Potential solution • Ethical Principle or code • Pros • Cons 

1. Alternative Solution 1: Implement an HIV testing service for expecting and breastfeeding mothers. If they test positive, then they should put their infants onto the porridge treatment, whereas if they are negative, maintain the status quo. 
   1. Ethical Principle or code: Consequence-based thinking
   2. Pros: 
      1. Only exposed to pesticides if HIV is a threat. 
      2. More people are made aware of their HIV status, allowing better treatment regimens to be followed. 
      3. Less likely infants will contract HIV. 
   3. Cons: 
      1. Money is split between two initiatives, so both may never be fully developed to their full potential. 
      2. Farmers are paid less since less crops are used. 
      3. How far can this really go? What would the start and end be?
2. Alternative Solution 2: Stop growing crops with pesticides
   1. Ethical Principle or code: Consequence-based thinking
   2. Pros: 
      1. Ingredients are no longer harmful to children. Children have a decreased chance of contracting HIV. 
   3. Cons: 
      1. Increased pests in cash crops, leading to a smaller harvest, less food for the community, and less income for the farmers. 
3. Alternative Solution 3: Use the grant money to research methods of growing crops without pesticides
   1. Ethical Principle or code: Duty-based thinking and consequence-based thinking 
   2. Pros:
      1. Crops are grown without pesticides
      2. Farmers continue to have a high yield
      3. Infants are less prone to contracting HIV
   3. Cons:
      1. May require significant time and resources
      2. Could take lots of time for farmers to adapt to new practices
      3. May or may not work 
4. Alternative Solution 4: Engineer the product’s processor to remove pesticides
   1. Ethical Principle or code: Virtue-based thinking
   2. Pros: 
      1. There is a nutritious supplement without pesticides 
      2. Farmers continue to make money on their crops
      3. Infants are less exposed to HIV
   3. Cons:
      1. Maybe hard to produce on a large scale
      2. Less profitable
      3. Cooperative gets too big and you have more distrust which leads to it all falling apart

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – engineering codes of ethics, previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection 

According to the National Pesticide Information Center, removing the majority of pesticide residues is easy to do. While there is no method that is 100% effective, most residues can be removed from washing or heating the crops. 

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that which satisfies the highest core ethical values. Explain reasoning and justify. Discuss your stance vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in the class. 

• Solution: Engineer the product’s processor to remove pesticides
  • How does the decision minimize risk for everyone:
    • Infants and mothers are exposed to less pesticides and HIV overall. 
  • How does it compare to other approaches
    • It allows for local businesses to be profitable while also protecting stakeholders from illnesses. Other solutions would have required producing less product, which would ultimately harm the farmers’ revenues and the nutritional health of the population. 

Step 7: (If applicable) What are the implications of your solution on the venture. Explain the impact of your proposed solution on the venture’s technology, economic, social and environmental aspects.

• Impact of the venture:
  • Technological: Would have to develop an engineering solution to effectively remove pesticides during processing. 
  • Social: There would be no stigma associated with the new product, e.g., hesitancy to use a product that only HIV positive individuals purchase. 
  • Economic: Farmers would draw more revenues, but the cooperation would be less profitable. 
  • Environmental: More energy and resources would be required to remove pesticides. Also, farmers would continue to grow their crops with pesticides which are likely bad for the environment. 

Part 2: Grassroots Diplomacy Strategy

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible 

1. Women work 9 hours a week and earn about $3
2. Women enjoy working together and are happy with the cooperative
3. Cooperative members have the opportunity to sell produce from their small farms to the cooperative which provides them more income
4. Cooperative arrangement saves women time and money
5. Significant issue with women being required to turn over money to their husbands who often misuse the money
6. Committee overseeing the cooperative upset with the situation but dont think change is possible 
7. Women upset that the food is not reaching the children
8. Six months left until you leave the cooperative completely 

Step 2 and Step 3 : Define the problem and the stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome. Determine and distinguish between the personal and professional motivations of the stakeholders. 

Problem Statement: Women are successfully earning an income to support their family, however, once their husbands are in control of their finances, it is not put towards family development. 

1. Me
   1. Personal Motivation: Personal engagement with the project, ethical opinion in the situation
   2. Professional Motivation: Reflects on my credibility and ability to get more resources in the future
2. Cooperative members (women)
   1. Personal Motivations: Want financial independence, better living conditions, and be able to spend the money on the well being of their children
   2. Professional Motivations: Want to contribute to the cooperative and be active community members
3. Cooperative leadership team
   1. Personal Motivations: Advocating for the rights of the women/cooperative members and address social inequalities
   2. Professional Motivations: Ensuring the cooperatives sustainability
4. Children
   1. Personal Motivations: want to eat nutritious food 
5. Men who are responsible for their wives’ income 
   1. Personal Motivations: Use the money received from their wives for personal interest such as alcohol and frivolous things 
   2. Professional Motivations:

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on information available, to have a win-win situation for your relationship and your venture. 

Approaches [1/2/3: repeat for every action] • Potential Solution • How does it solve the problem? o Pros o Cons • How does it save face of those involved? • Implications on relationships o Short-term o Long-term • Implications on the venture o Short-term o Long-term 

• Engage the men
• Find a way to store the money and make it available to the women at certain times

1. Solution 1: Pay the Women in food (or whatever they ask for) with a little money on the side. 
   1. How does it solve the problem?
      1. It provides women with what they need while still providing the family with money to keep the husbands happy 
   2. Pros: 
      1. Women get essentials
      2. Women are able to provide food for children
   3. Cons: 
      1. Could become more expensive 
      2. It is more difficult to gauge fair wage/food distribution among workers 
   4. How does it save face?
      1. Husbands believe their wives are receiving money, so it does not seem like you are undermining them. Also, the rest of the board believes a
   5. Implications on relationships
      1. Keeps husbands happy (hopefully)
   6. Implications on venture
      1. Short term: Will be more expensive for the Venture
      2. Long term: Could strengthen the community

1. Solution 2:  Vouchers instead of cash
   1. How does it solve the problem?
      1. This could be seen as a short term solution because it could quickly turn bad (there are more cons the more you think about it)
   2. Pros: 
      1. Can use the voucher to purchase food
      2. Eliminates risk of husband taking all the money
   3. Cons: 
      1. How do you know that the women will buy nutritious food?
      2. Which food provider would the voucher work for?
      3. Could lead to black market
   4. How does it save face?
   5. Implications on relationships
      1. Short term: Husbands upset that they are no longer receiving money
      2. Long term: Bigger void between relationships/family
   6. Implications on venture

1. Solution 3: Educational workshops 
   1. How does it solve the problem?
      1. Educates the community on financial decisions and encourage healthy spending habits
   2. Pros:
      1. Fosters a sense of equality within households
      2. Might encourage cooperative members  to allocate the earnings for the family
   3. Cons: 
      1. Will see resistance from men
      2. Required a lot of time and resources to create program
   4. How does it save face?
      1. By promoting joint decision-making, this solution respects the roles and opinions of both men and women within the community. It avoids directly challenging traditional gender roles.
   5. Implications on relationships
      1. Short term: Some resistance and tension may arise
      2. Long term: There could be improved communication
   6. Implications on venture
      1. Short term: Venture may take a hit as they have to provide time and money to create the program
      2. Long term: It could strengthen the community

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection 

• 78.3% of malnourished children recovered as a result of a food voucher program in Cameroon. This shows that if people are paid in food either directly or indirectly, proper nutrients are able to make their way into households (NIH) 

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that solves the problem, saves face and has the best short term and long-term implications for your relationship and venture. Explain reasoning and discuss your solution vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in class. 

• Solution 1: Pay the Women in food (or whatever they ask for) with a little money on the side. 
  • Reasoning: We decided this was the best  solution because it allows the women to continue bringing back money to their husbands while also providing them with nutritious food for their children. 
  • Other Solutions posed more problems in the long term

Step 7: List the sequence of actions you will take to implement your solution.

1. Seek input:
   1. First speak to the women and get input on how they would feel about the change
   2. Frame that it is not changing gender roles or the culture and explain it’s just better for the company
2. Get the men on board and get them to see the value
3. Identify Community leaders 
   1. Get them on board ahead of time
4. Individual conversations with other 6 board members

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible 

Facts: 

1. Jack is an American student who lives at a youth center in Kenya working on a social venture
2. An international donor organization sent presents for children under 14 years old
3. Jack is chosen to hand out gifts to the kids at the youth center which makes the kids think Jack got the gifts himself
4. Four kids did not receive gifts and were given hats that were at the bottom of the gift boxes but were upset since they did not receive a gift originally 
5. Jack met with the staff to discuss the situation that the kids who did not receive gifts originally were upset and felt left out
6. The staff did not care about the problem and told Jack to solve it himself 

Step 2: Define the problem and the stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome 

Problem: Four kids are upset that they did not receive ceremonial gifts like the other children, and Jack is blamed for the incident. The youth center staff say that Jack is making a big deal out of a trivial matter and do not help him resolve the misunderstanding.

Stakeholders:

1. Jack
2. Youth center staff
3. Kids who live at the youth center
4. International donor organization 

Step 3: Determine and distinguish between the personal and professional motivations of the stakeholders.

Motivation of Stakeholders:

1. Jack: 
   1. Wants to build good relationships with the kids that live in the youth center
   2. Wants to maintain a good relationship with the staff at the youth center
   3. Wants to be able to work on his social venture
2. Youth center staff: 
   1. Want to maintain a good image for the kids who live in the youth center and ensure everything runs smoothly
   2. Want to maintain a good relationship with their international donor 
3. Kids who live at the youth center: 
   1. Want to be treated equally and fairly 
4. International donor organization: 
   1. Want to provide underprivileged children with donations 

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on the information available, to have a win-win situation for your relationship and your venture. 

Approaches [1/2/3: repeat for every action] 

Potential Solution 1: Next time, communicate with the international donor organization to let them know how many children are expecting gifts

• How does it solve the problem? 
  • Pros: This allows for all the kids to get a gift.
  • Cons: May seem rude to the donor organization or seem like the youth center is not grateful for the gifts that they have received. Donor organizations may not have the capacity to gift gifts to all of the children. 

• How does it save face of those involved? 
  • The children feel acknowledged as they received a gift that was not the hat 
• Implications on relationships 
  • Short-term: The relationship between Jack and the children is improved
  • Long-term: The donor may not want to provide gifts in the future

• Implications on the venture 
  • Short-term: The children are content and all receive gifts
  • Long-term: The relationship between the center and the international donor is strained, because the donor feels that the center is not grateful for the donations that they have received. In the future, the international donor decides to halt relations with the center

Potential Solution 2: Jack communicates with the children that the incident was not his doing

• How does it solve the problem? 
  • Pros: This clears up the misunderstanding and the children will not be upset with Jack
  • Cons: The youth center staff would be upset that the blame is now on them

• How does it save face of those involved? 
  • Jack clears up his reputation with the children, and the children feel acknowledged 
• Implications on relationships 
  • Short-term: Relationship with the children at the center strengthens
  • Long-term: Jack’s relationship with the staff at the center becomes strained, and they may not treat him the best going forward

• Implications on the venture 
  • Short-term: Will make the children happy 
  • Long-term: Jack’s relationship with the staff at the center is strained. The staff no longer trust him and believe he is causing unnecessary problems at the center

Potential Solution 3: Jack buys more gifts and speaks to the staff about how they labeled the gifts so they could count if there were enough gifts for all of the kids 

• How does it solve the problem? 
  • Pros: There would be a sufficient amount of gifts for all of the kids, so none of them feel left out
  • Cons: Jack would have to spend his own money and time to go out and buy more gifts

• How does it save face of those involved? 
  • The children would be happy because they all have a gift, and Jack’s relationship with them would be restored. Jack saves face to the children because he no longer looks like the bad guy but is instead seen as a hero to them because he gets them gifts
  • The staff at the center are not exposed for being the ones responsible for not giving gifts to the children
• Implications on relationships 
  • Short-term: The relationship between Jack and the children at the center is strengthened. The relationship between Jack and the center staff may still be tense because he went against their suggestion to let the situation go
  • Long-term: Jack can build strong relationships with the children, but the staff believe he is a “children’s rights activist” and are not fond of him

• Implications on the venture 
  • Short-term: The children are happy
  • Long-term: Jack cannot continue to buy gifts for the children who do not receive gifts from donors, or when Jack leaves, no one else is able to buy gifts for the children and the original issue persists. 

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection 

• Young children often forget things quickly, so they may move on from the situation without intervention
• Is Jack’s relationship with the children more valuable, or is his relationship with the staff at the center more valuable?
  • The relationship with the staff is probably more valuable because they have more power than the children at the center
  • Jack is there to work on his social venture, so building a strong relationship with influential people will be beneficial to him

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that solves the problem, saves face, and has the best short-term and long-term implications for your relationship and venture. Explain reasoning and discuss your solution vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in class. 

Propose the distribution of the hats in the same ceremonial fashion as the other gifts to the staff. This would make the children happy, while eliminating the issue of Jack feeling like the blame was thrown on him, and is clear communication between Jack and the staff at the youth center. This is a course of action that only requires a behavioral change, rather than a materialistic one, so it is fairly easy to execute and does not require the purchasing of more gifts, which may be costly. In the short-term, the kids will be happy with the gifts that they receive, even those that received hats because the ceremony would have made them feel special regardless of the actual gift. In the long term, Jack’s relationship with the children is maintained. Regarding the relationship between Jack and the youth center staff, there may be some disagreement because they would believe that Jack is making a big deal out of an issue that shouldn’t exist. However, this solution only requires a small behavior change and avoids blame being placed on anyone involved, so they may be receptive to the solution. Because of this, we hope that the relationship between the staff and Jack also remains stable in the long term. 

Step 7: List the sequence of actions you will take to implement your solution.

1. Confront the staff and let them know that you observed some kids were upset they did not receive a ceremony for their gift
2. Propose the solution of mixing in a ceremony for all kids, regardless of what gift they are going to receive
3. Hear out what the staff have to say, if they are receptive to the solution then implement it. If not, do nothing and stick with the original plan, having Jack take the blame
4. If Jack takes the blame, his relationship with the children becomes strained in the short term but is quickly resolved once the kids move on from the situation
5. The children forget about the whole gift situation, the donor-youth center relationship is maintained, and Jack lives with no issues in the youth center

Case 

Lesotho is a small developing country contained within South Africa. You and your team of academic researchers (10 in all) are spending the next two weeks traveling to different communities throughout Lesotho to test water sources for disease-causing pathogens. The testing you need to do is simple but requires significant assistance from the community – showing your team all the different locations where individuals get their water from, and places/methods for storing the water. You do not see the need to pay the community members, considering if someone asked you about your water source, you would not mind driving them up to the lake! The ultimate goal of the project is to understand the lifecycle and characteristics of a specific pathogen, which is found only in this region of Lesotho. Several publications are expected from this research study. A comprehensive profile of this pathogen can help in many ways including the development of chemical additives to make the water safe to drink. 

Facts:

1. Lesotho is a small developing country in South Africa
2. Testing the water for the disease-causing pathogen found only in Lesotho
3. Testing is simple but requires assistance from the community
4. Community members are solely volunteers in this research
5. Ultimate goal is to understand the lifecycle and characteristics of the pathogen

Stakeholders

1. Researchers
2. The community members
3. The local government authorities
4. The local scientific authorities
5. The Scientific company funding the research project

Motivation of Stakeholders

1. Researchers: To understand the lifecycle and characteristics of the pathogen
2. The community members: to have access to clean/safe water
3. The local government authorities: regulate water
4. The local scientific authorities: understand the pathogen more
5. The Scientific company funding the research project: to possibly publish studies on the pathogen

Is it ethical to conduct this research study? What will you do next?

Identifies ethical issue

Yes, it is ethical to conduct this research because it is not human subjects in question so no harm is being done to any humans or the environment, but rather the intention is to make the lives of the community members better through the provision of clean and safe drinking water. 

Compensating the community members who decide to take part in the research will be good. Not compensating them will have no effect on whether it is ethical or not.

Next steps:

1.Community engagement- Involve the community members so that they feel like they are a part of the process that will make them lead healthier lives.

2.Pay the people money for travel and their ‘time’

3.Active community engagement

Potential Solution: Researchers actively engage with the community, involve them in research design, and share benefits of the research.

Ethical Principle or Code: Respect for Autonomy, Beneficence, and Community Involvement.

Pros: Builds trust, ensures community input, empowers the community, aligns with ethical principles.

Cons: Requires additional time and effort in community engagement, may increase project complexity.

Approach 3: Long-Term Community Benefits

Potential Solution: Researchers commit to providing long-term benefits to the community based on research findings, such as improved water quality or healthcare services.

Ethical Principle or Code: Beneficence and Non-Maleficence.

Pros: Ensures lasting positive impact, addresses community needs, promotes sustainability.

Cons: May require ongoing support and resources, necessitates follow-up actions.

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate.

Consult with ethics committees, research ethics guidelines, and experts in research ethics to ensure alignment with best practices.

Step 6: Select the best course of action.

The best course of action is Approach 2: Active Community Engagement.

Justification:

This approach respects the autonomy of the community by involving them in decision-making.

It aligns with the principles of justice and fairness by actively engaging with the community and ensuring they have a say in the research process.

It empowers the community and fosters trust, which can lead to more meaningful and ethical research outcomes.

It addresses the ethical concerns raised by the community’s involvement in the research.

Vis-a-vis Other Approaches:

While “Fair Compensation” (Approach 1) addresses the issue of compensation, it may not fully address the ethical concerns related to community engagement and empowerment.

“Long-Term Community Benefits” (Approach 3) is commendable, but it may not be immediately feasible or sustainable without active community involvement.

In conclusion, active community engagement (Approach 2) is the most ethical course of action in this scenario. It respects the community’s autonomy, promotes fairness, and empowers the community while addressing their concerns and ensuring meaningful participation in the research.

When conducting the research,what else should you think about?

1. Language barrier, there may not be terms for specific topics (or different terms)
2. Impact of your research. Positively or negatively
3. Community Engagement and Collaboration: Building trust and positive relationships with the local communities is crucial. 
4. Cultural Sensitivity: Be aware of and respect the local culture, customs, and traditions. Cultural sensitivity can play a significant role in the success of your research and the acceptance of your team within the communities.
5. Environmental Impact: Assess and minimize any environmental impact your research activities may have, such as waste disposal and the use of chemicals for water testing.
6. Long-Term Sustainability: Consider the long-term sustainability of your research efforts and how the findings can benefit the communities beyond the duration of your project. This could involve capacity building or knowledge sharing.
7. Community Health Education: Alongside your research, conduct health education programs within the communities to raise awareness about waterborne diseases and safe water practices. This can empower residents to take steps to protect their health.

Ethical Decision-Making Methodology 

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible. Clearly state the ethical issue. 

Step 2: Define the Stakeholders – Researchers, community members, funders,  those with a vested interest in the outcome 

Step 3: Assess the motivations of the Stakeholders-

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on information available, using basic ethical core values as a guide 

Approaches [1/2/3: repeat for every action]

• Potential solution 
• Ethical Principle or code 
• Pros 
• Cons 

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – engineering codes of ethics, previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection 

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that which satisfies the highest core ethical values. Explain reasoning and justify. Discuss your stance vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in the class

PROMPT #1:

• Identify the three specific stakeholder groups most impacted by your project. For each one, go through the five elements of framework #2 and identify different answers for each group. In other words, if you’re telling your story to stakeholder group #1 (let’s say, middle school students), what is the context that would be most meaningful to that group? What is the catalyst most meaningful to that group? And so on.

• Stakeholder#1: citizens of Almaty
  • Context: air pollution is decreasing their health and they must start taking preventative measures
  • Catalyst: citizens need to be cautious of the air pollution each day
  • Complication: many citizens don’t care or don’t know about how harmful it is
  • Change: spread awareness about free preventative measures they can take
  • Consequence: the resolution is for citizens to avoid highly polluted areas as much as possible
• Stakeholder#2: air quality and monitor makers 
  • Context: only upper class citizens are able to afford monitors and filters
  • Catalyst: we are bringing cheap monitors and filters to the market in Almaty
  • Complication: only expensive ones are on the market right now
  • Change: we bring our monitors and filters and make an assembly shop in Almaty
  • Consequence: all citizens can afford monitors and filters
• Stakeholder#3: study participants: Haileybury students
  • Context: students have low impact on society as their thoughts and actions are often neglected
  • Catalyst: students are working on this project together to improve their environment
  • Complication: in addition to opposing social expectation, they will have to juggle between academics and project work
  • Change: influence and urge their community to take actions and look beyond social norms
  • Consequence: impact their environment and improve the air quality

PROMPT #2:

• From the two story frameworks, CHOOSE ONE of them. Doesn’t matter which – choose the one that speaks to you more, or choose randomly. Once you’ve chosen one framework, ignore the other one for this prompt.
• As a team, write the story of your project (as it exists today), using the five story elements in the order in which they are given, #1 through #5. Each element’s section should consist of at least 2-3 carefully constructed sentences. 
• The result should be a coherent, beginning-middle-end story about your project which someone of reasonable intelligence who is unfamiliar with your project can follow and understand, and more importantly, be inspired by. The blog entry should be written as a text-based story, not a bulleted list. You should write it as a first-person plural story – in other words, the character is “we,” the project team.
• Talk it through as a team. Does it make sense? Does it say everything you want and need it to say? If this were the essential structure of your Fall presentations (stretched out to 7 minutes), would it be successful and would the referees know what you were talking about and why? 

Every year, 10,000 people die prematurely due to air pollution related diseases in Almaty Kazakhstan (Tyo et al., 2022). This number is inevitable in an environment where P.M. 2.5 levels reaches 17 times what WHO recommends as safe. 

However, what is more dangerous than the air pollution itself is people’s indifference towards the issue. A belief that they cannot do anything to improve the situation and protect themselves. A belief so strong that they prefer to keep silent rather than taking actions. 

So, here we are, Breathe Almaty, to ring that bell, to remind these people that they are in charge of their life, health, and the environment. Our project has four elements: cognitive study and public outreach (for ringing the bell); air monitor and filter (for equipping people for the fight against the air pollution).

This work is impossible without our partners in Almaty: the Almaty Management University and the Haileybury school. With these dedicated individuals, we are bridging Lehigh and Almaty and working towards one ultimate goal: to create a society where people are not only aware of their situation but also are willing to take actions and sacrifice their comfort to protect their environment.

We see behavioral change and the following social change as a way to prevent those 10,000 premature deaths. From simple mask-wearing habits to a policy change, it all starts with us. Our decisions matter. Our actions matter. We just need to remind ourselves that we are in charge. 

Tyo, V., & Gu, Y. (2022, September 5). Cleaning the Air and Improving People’s Health in Almaty. UNDP Kazakhstan. https://www.undp.org/kazakhstan/blog/cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health-almaty 

STOP/Fieldwork & Mountaintop reflection

1. Achievements
   1. Fieldwork
   2. Multiple contacts in Almaty
   3. Divided up our project into specified teams
   4. IRB
2. Challenges
   1. Communication with Kazakhstan team
   2. Communication with Hong Kong team (air filter)
3. Further Plans
   1. Regularly meet with our teams at Haileybury
   2. Conduct study
   3. Plan forms of outreach

CINQ 388 Ethical Decision-Making Methodology 

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible. Clearly state the ethical issue. 

1. Facts: 
   1. Without auto-disable safety feature → low cost (accessible) + risk of spreading disease
   2. With auto-disable safety feature → higher cost + safety

1. Ethical issue:
   1. Should we prioritize accessibility or safety?
      1. Should I help 10 people or should I help 100 people although certain amount of people might be exposed to another disease?

Step 2: Define the Stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome 

Step 3: Assess the motivations of the Stakeholders 

1. Hospitals/clinics – primary stakeholder – customer
   1. Interest: Helping those who are in need to achieve and maintain their optimal health; sustaining their operation through financial security
2. Patients – primary stakeholder – end user
   1. Interest: Achieving and maintaining their best health; having access to health services regardless of their socioeconomic status (health equity)
3. Designers/manufacturers/insurance companies – secondary stakeholders 
   1. Interest: Using technology to better human life; making profit to sustain their business
4. Government/regulatory body – secondary stakeholders
   1. Interest: Securing the safety of the country and its citizens; serving the best for its citizens

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on information available, using basic ethical core values as guide

 Approaches [1/2/3: repeat for every action] 

• Potential solution: Designing the high-cost syringe and finding funding to make it accessible
• Ethical Principle or code: Duty-based thinking
• Pros: Safe health practice can be established
• Cons: Needs the involvement of third stakeholder (government + insurance companies) to step in and manage the financial aspect of the product to secure the accessibility among general public

• Potential solution: Designing the low-cost syringe and formulating disposal instructions/regulations
• Ethical Principle or code: Consequence-based thinking
• Pros: As accessibility is secured, many more people can be helped regardless of their socioeconomic status.
• Cons: Needs to practice strong disposal regulations to prevent possible spread of disease

• Potential solution: Design both syringes and let people make their own decisions
• Ethical Principle or code: duty-based thinking
• Pros: People will have choice.
• Cons: Those with lower socioeconomic status will be disproportionately affected by the possible spread of disease through low-cost syringe.

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – engineering codes of ethics, previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection [RESEARCH the necessary informations]

• WHO guideline: Safety-engineered syringes to prevent re-use
• CDC guideline:  Syringes should be discarded after single use and should not be re-used
• Incidence of syringe transmitted diseases: Acute hepatitis C virus cases rose 3.5-fold from 2010-2016 and majority of new cases are due to injection drug use.
• The growth market for disposable syringes: With this growth comes cheaper costs, which could aid in solving this problem

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that which satisfies the highest core ethical values. Explain reasoning and justify. Discuss your stance vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in the class. 

1. Designing both high and low-cost syringes to secure both accessibility and safety, and also working with third stakeholders to formulate and reinforce strict regulations on syringe disposal to prevent misuse
   1. Pros:
      1. Making options available
      2. Securing safety through safety feature in high-cost syringe and safety regulation in low-cost syringe
      3. Incorporating both consequence and duty-based thinking
      4. Prioritizing both safety and accessibility
   2. Cons:
      1. Needs third party involvement on regulations to prevent possible health disparity

Step 7: (If applicable) What are the implications of your solution on the venture. Explain the impact of your proposed solution on the venture’s technology, economic, social and environmental aspects. An abridged version (6-step) of the 9-Step Process from “Applied Ethics Case of the Month Club”; adapted from methodology developed by Andy Lau @ Penn State.

• Technology: 
  • High-cost syringe: using technology to better human life 
  • Low-cost syringe: less technology to decrease the cost 
• Economic: 
  • High-cost: designers and manufacturers and make profit and sustain their business
  • Low-cost: everyone will have access 
• Social: reducing health disparity by introducing low-cost product and strong regulations
• Environmental: 
  • Low-cost: could lead to less pollution because it has less parts

6/12-6/16

During the second week of Mountaintop, our primary objective was to complete an IRB proposal for the natural experiment we plan to launch in October. Obtaining approval from the Almaty high school, our partner institution, was crucial as it required students to fill consent forms to participate in our study. On Tuesday, during our Weekly League Check-Ins, we presented our project, discussed the progress made during our fieldwork, and outlined our plans for the upcoming week.

On Thursday, we had a meeting with our professor to discuss the specifics of the IRB proposal and explore potential partnerships that could empower the people of Almaty. During this meeting, our professor provided us with the missing piece required to set up our monitors. Additionally, the professor highlighted an interesting observation from her extended stay in Almaty: company representatives expressed more interest in our filter than in our monitor. As a result, one suggestion was to design an interactive pamphlet explaining the root causes of air pollution, promoting the benefits of using and purchasing our filter, and highlighting the positive health effects of having multiple filters.

In the afternoon, we shifted our focus to hands-on work, constructing additional monitors in Wilbur. With all the necessary components in place, we successfully assembled multiple monitors. Both Almaty and Lehigh now have air monitors, allowing both sides to continue their testing. We reached out to our partners at Lingen University via email, requesting additional air filters for Lehigh, since our only unit is currently in Almaty. Unfortunately, they currently don’t have any available units, but they assured us that they would notify us as soon as more supplies become accessible.

6/5-6/9

The first day of Mountaintop we started the day with an introductory session, providing us with a glimpse of what is ahead in this extraordinary program. Our session began with a round of introductions, facilitated by Bill’s engaging icebreakers. As we took turns sharing our backgrounds and origins, to create a more welcoming space. 

One of the highlights of the day was the opportunity to see the incredible projects underway within each group. It helped us all see new perspectives on the diverse ideas and initiatives being pursued. Each presentation offered a unique glimpse into the creative minds of our fellow participants and their ambition for the next ten weeks.

To summarize the activities over the next couple of days at Mountaintop, we made comprehensive plans for the week. Our top three priorities included assigning specific roles to interested Halieybury students for our project, which we discussed during our previous meeting with them during fieldwork. We successfully scheduled a meeting with these students for this coming Monday, where we will introduce the projects and clarify their tasks based on their preferred roles (such as cognitive function, air monitors, air filters, or targeted public outreach).

The second area of focus was the implementation of air monitors. While we had already built a few for Almaty, we needed to create monitors for Lehigh as well. To accomplish this, we utilized the Wilbur Electronic Design Room to assemble the necessary components. This week, we managed to construct approximately six monitors. However, they are not yet fully functional, as we are currently awaiting a missing piece that the professor will be sending us shortly. Once we receive it, we will have a complete set of six monitors.

Lastly, we dedicated attention to the development of our Institutional Review Board (IRB) proposals. These proposals are crucial for obtaining approval to conduct our natural experiment in schools across Almaty. We are actively working on these proposals to ensure we meet all the necessary requirements and receive the green light for our research.

In summary, the key accomplishments of the past few days at Mountain Top involved assigning roles to Halieybury students, organizing a meeting with them, constructing air monitors for Lehigh, and progressing with the IRB proposals for our project in Almaty.

Blog #4: Team Prompts– 

1. List the top 20 questions your team needs to answer to advance the venture forward. Categorize the questions if necessary. 

1. When is the heating season in Almaty?
2. Where are the power houses located?
3. What is the general map of the city?
4. Where are the main roads located?
5. Where are self-heating traditional houses mainly located?
6. Where are the schools located? 
7. When will we conduct the experiment?
8. How can we make our monitors and filters easily accessible?
9. How many participants do we need?
10. How will we analyze the data?
11. How can we convince citizens to take better precautions?
12. What is the best way to educate people about the effects of poor air quality?
13. What is the most effective way to make air monitors?
14. Can we persuade the government to make meaningful changes?
15. How much help can we anticipate from Kazak organizations?
16. What other potential partnerships can we form? 
17. Realistically, will we be able to improve the air quality? 
18. How to build sustainable and affordable air filters with local products?
19.  How to share the result of our experimental study?
20. Do we need funding? How can we get any?

2. Develop and Visualize the Theory of Change (Logic Model) for your venture. Please submit a crisp visual. 

https://lehighedu-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/personal/jlm526_lehigh_edu/Ef30lmzn6olGnyEZitZG-g0B43TxQsfHz300l44wIoXp3A?e=4%3A91RzkX&at=9 

3. Develop a Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) plan for your venture. Identify short-term and long-term outcomes.

1. Metric of success: we are going to measure success through cognitive tests. The results of the tests will tell us if air quality has an effect on cognitive performance.
2. Short term: educate people on ways to keep protect themselves from poor air quality and create air monitors
3. Long term: infrastructural change and improved air quality will decrease the health issues associated with air pollution

1. Submit your matrix of research and venture goals for the Spring semester, Summer/Fieldwork, and Fall semester. 

Timetable:

1. Spring 2023
   1. Project goal
      1. Air monitor
         1. Learning to assemble monitors (new members)
         2. Assembling 20 air monitors and sending to Alma U for the quasi study
         3. Creating exterior design for the air monitors
      2. Air Filter
         1. Doing research on the design of affordable and insertable air filters
         2. Analyzing the old prototype we build last summer
         3. Listing and purchasing necessary materials for the filter
         4. Building the first air filter
         5. Creating an exterior design for the air filter
      3. Air monitor and air filter
         1. Testing the air monitor and filter at Lehigh before the Fieldwork and collecting data
            1. 3 weeks
            2. Open window; closed window; open window+air filter
         2. Improving the monitors and filters based on the test
      4. Assembly shop
         1. Doing research on establishing Assembly shop
         2. Finding local partners to collaborate on the Assembly Shop
      5. Social media
         1. Creating and developing social media account
   2. Research goal
      1. Quasi experimental study
         1. Getting CITI certificate
         2. Designing the method and the environment of the study
         3. Monthly online meeting with partners
         4. Writing research proposal
         5. Applying for the IRB
         6. Writing consent form (if needed) and translating the consent form
         7. Start collecting data through our local partners
      2. Last year’s study
         1. Conference in REEESNe
   3. Resources needed
      1. Air monitor parts for air monitor 
      2. The old air filter design to analyze
      3. The information of how our partners can cooperate with us on the study
      4. Testing location at Lehigh
      5. Local partners to collaborate on the Assembly Shop
2. Summer 2023
   1. Project goal
      1. Air monitor and filter
         1. Finding the necessary materials in local market
         2. Replicating the test at Lehigh in Almaty in shorter time period
            1. 3 days
            2. Open window; closed window; open window+filter
         3. Testing in multiple location to collect data
            1. Indoor; outdoor; downtown; outer area of the city
         4. Fixing the models based on the fieldwork testing
         5. Repeating the 3-week test at Lehigh
            1. 3 weeks
            2. Open window; closed window; open window+air filter
         6. Finalizing the design of the air monitors and air filters
      2. Assembly shop
         1. Finding local partners
         2. Establishing the agenda and the practices
         3. Setting up the Assembly shop
      3. Social media
         1. Informational posts about the consequences of air pollution
            1. Sharing the result of the study
         2. Promotional posts for monitors and filters
         3. Keep posting and updating the account with the process of the project and research
   2. Research goal
      1. Experimental study
         1. Exploring the social dimension and selecting another organization to conduct the study and to scale up our study
         2. Continue collecting data at AlmaU
         3. Finish collecting the data 
         4. Analyzing the data
         5. Writing a paper
         6. Applying for conferences
         7. Applying for publication
   3. Resources needed
      1. Airfare
      2. Funding for materials of monitors and filters
      3. Locations to test the monitor and filter
      4. Finding local partners for the Assembly shop project
      5. Assembly shop logistics
3. Fall 2023
   1. Project goal
      1. Air monitor and filter
         1. Participating in conferences to introduce our low-cost monitors and filters
      2. Assembly shop
         1. Training Assembly shop workers
         2. Starting the mass-assembly of monitors and filters
      3. Social media
         1. Promotional posts for monitors and filters and the Assembly shop
         2. Keep posting and updating the account with the process of the project and research
   2. Research goal
      1. Experimental study
         1. Participating in conferences to share the results of the study
         2. Formulating the next year’s study
   3. Resources needed
      1. Promotion of the products
      2. Funding for conference traveling

Identify the 10 toughest questions from the 14-page list, and answer them in advance of your presentations. 

1. What stops another business/nonprofit/social enterprise from offering identical products or services? 
2. What is your intellectual property strategy?
3. How will customers purchase your product? 
4. What kinds of human resources do you need?
5. Who manufactures it? Where do you manufacture it? How do you manufacture it? 
6. What kind of full-time staffing will you need?
7. How will you determine salaries / stipends?
8. What kind of perks and benefits will your employees expect? 
9. What kind of oversight and accountability mechanisms will you deploy?
10. What are the core costs incurred to operate the venture?

Write 3 elevator speeches about your project: 

• For a professor/advisor
  • Did you know that air quality in some parts of the world is so bad that you can see the particulate matter with your naked eye? We are part of an impact fellowship to help mitigate the effects that the poor air quality has on health. Our current goals right now are to collect data on how air quality affects cognitive ability and to build cost effective air monitors and filters. We would appreciate it if you shared your opinion and expertise with us and if you have any thoughts on further action we should take. 
• For an interviewer for a summer internship 
  • Through the Office of Creative Inquiry at Lehigh University, I am in a Global Social Impact Fellowship. My project is to help mitigate the effects that poor air quality in Almaty, Kazakhstan has on human health. My team consists of 4 other Lehigh students, a faculty advisor, and students from Almaty Management University. We are working together to build air monitors and filters and to collect data about the effects that air quality has on cognitive ability. This fellowship has taught me so much already about how to work with a team of people from diverse backgrounds and has made me feel prepared for this internship.
• For a roommate asking about your project
  • My project is working to help educate the citizens in Almaty, Kazakhstan about the effects of poor air quality on their health. We’re building air monitors and filters and conducting tests on them to see the different amounts of particulate matter in the air. We are also working with Almaty Management University to gather and analyze the effects that air quality has on cognitive ability. Follow our Instagram @aqalehigh to see updates about our project!