Step 1: The facts & ethical issue

 

Explicit facts:

1. Researchers are going into Lesotho for two weeks (a team of 10) to research the life cycle and characteristics of a pathogen found in this region’s water. 
2. To do this, they need the community’s assistance to show them water sources as well as methods of storing water. 
3. The end goal is a publication, profiling of the pathogen, and development of additives to counteract the pathogen.

 

Implicit facts:

1. The people of Lesotho are reliable and knowledgeable about the geographical landscape.
2. Studying the water of the region can help identify harmful pathogens and can help the researchers develop additives that can purify the water in the region.

 

Ethical Issue:

 

The citizens of Lesotho are not necessarily being fairly compensated/benefiting from the research conducted by the researchers who are using the expertise of the locals for testing water sources. This appears to be a hit and run research that only benefits one party.

 

Step 2: The Stakeholders

 

1. Academic University
2. You (research team)
3. People of Lesotho
4. Academic partnerships/ Funders
5. Healthcare workers of Lesotho

 

Step 3: Motivations of the Stakeholders

 

1. Academic University: They want recognition for their research (promote their personal brand). They might also want to attract prospective students. 
2. You (research team): To gain recognition from your field of work and a publication. Begin a development of chemical additives to make the water safe to drink. It could also be more professional because you might be bound to do the research because of the company you work with.
3. People of Lesotho: They would want to help the researchers with the expectation that the researchers would help educate them about safe drinking water. Maybe they would want to build partnerships with people from a different country/organization. However, there might be a problem with this because they might give you information to satisfy you.
4. Academic partnerships/Funders: To be a part of a publication and as a result of that gain more money which they can use to fund more projects, our findings will add to a wider body of knowledge on the pathogen and their reputation.
5. Healthcare workers of Lesotho: they might be interested in helping the researchers because they have firsthand experience and knowledge about the diseases and harm that the pathogens in the water cause. They might want to help out because they might want to reduce/eliminate the diseases in the first place instead of having to treat patients.

 

Step 4: Potential Solutions:

 

1. 1. Potential Solution 1: Provide sufficient financial compensation to community members who provide critical assistance and knowledge to the project 
      1. Ethical Principle: 
         1. Duty-Based Thinking: It only seems right to compensate the participants because we are using their knowledge for research purposes. This solution is a duty-based one because it puts the people of Lesotho and makes it clear that they deserve something in return for their help.
         2. Virtue Based Thinking: This type of thinking is used here because this solution is generosity based since the citizens of Lesotho are being kind enough to help researchers.

 

• Pros

 

1. 1. 1. 1. Receiving financial assistance if they missed normal work to help the project 
         2. Incentive enthusiastic participation (easier to convince someone to participate)
         3. If we pay people, they are more likely to share more water sources 

 

• Cons

 

1. 1. 1. Takes away from the funding of the project that could be used for something else 
      2. Providing too much or too little financial compensation might seem rude or undermining 
      3. May have too many volunteers which could create saturation of information 
2. Potential Solution  2: Provide educational compensation (education around the current status of their drinking water and its impact on their health, along with sharing our future findings) to community members who provide critical assistance and knowledge to the project.

 

 

• Ethical Principle: 

 

1. 1. 1. Duty-Based Thinking: It only seems right to compensate the participants because we are using their knowledge for research purposes. This solution is a duty-based one because it puts the people of Lesotho and makes it clear that they deserve something in return for their help.
      2. Virtue Based Thinking: This type of thinking is used here because this solution is generosity based since the citizens of Lesotho are being kind enough to help researchers.

 

 

• Pros

 

1. 1. 1. 1. Will help educate the community members about the safety of drinking water in their community 
         2. Those members can educate others about the safety of drinking water to spread awareness 
         3. Creates more empowerment and inclusion in the project 

 

• Cons

 

1. 1. 1. 1. The community may already know the water is unsafe and will feel that the researchers believe they are uneducated 
         2. Information on safe drinking water may not be perceived as correct based on cultural beliefs and level of science knowledge 
         3. May create panic as community members feel that they have no sources of safe drinking water and cause unrest 
   2. Potential Solution  3: We don’t compensate them but distribute the additive that is developed to the community 

 

• Ethical Principle: 

 

1. 1. 1. 1. Moral imagination is used here to come up with a solution to creatively tackle the ethical issue of compensating the people of Lesotho for their assistance in the research. Instead of short term compensation, the researchers decide to help out the community for their help by providing them with additives that can help stop the spread of waterborne diseases.

 

• Pros

 

1. 1. 1. 1. There is no unfairness in financial compensation to the participants 
         2. We are still giving back to the community but not to the participants directly  
         3. Save money

 

• Cons

 

1. 1. 1. The willing participants do not directly benefit from our use of their time or labor
      2. If we do not succeed, then there is no benefit to anybody
      3. People are unwilling to participate because they are not being compensated

 

Step 5: Additional Relevant Information

 

1. 1. The IRB Protocol is important to follow here because this research involves dealing with/interviewing the locals of Lesotho. This will ensure the ethical pillars such as consent and assessment of risks and benefits of conducting the research are discussed with the subjects.
   2. The Belmont Report also highlights some more important ethical guidelines that should be considered before proceeding with the research:
      1. Respect for persons- respecting people and their autonomy
      2. Beneficence-the idea of doing no harm while maximizing benefits for the research
      3. Justice (equal treatment): the fair distribution of resources and benefits to all participants

 

Step 6: Select the best course of action

 

The best course of action is a variation of solutions 2 and 3. It is important to recognize the people and their assistance with the research so that they feel valued. One way to do this with minimal cost is to educate not only the participants of the research but also the general public about the importance of safe drinking water. The researchers could interact with leaders with the community leaders and set up 30 minutes educational sessions where the participants come in, eat some snacks and learn about the steps that they can take to become more conscious about the water that they are drinking. This is a short term way of giving back to the community for their assistance.

 

In the long term, the researchers can offer the participants the additives that they would eventually develop using the research either at an affordable price or for free. Not only would this help reduce waterborne diseases in Lesotho, but it would make the locals feel valued. The two important benefits of this are that the researchers can first be greeted with warmth if they go back to Lesotho for conducting more research. They would also be helping the community improve their standard of living.

 

Another long term compensation that the researchers could provide would be to publish their research papers on open-source journals. This would help the participants see the tangible impact that they made in their community. Also, the researchers could acknowledge the community members in the acknowledgment section of the research paper as a common courtesy. In doing these things the researchers would forge a connection with the community that can help them with future research.

 

Step 7: implications of your solution on the venture:

 

1. Technological Impacts: Overall my solution has a positive technological impact on the community of Lesotho and similar communities. Since the research paper would be published in an open-source journal, the community members and other researchers trying to work on a solution to treat disease-causing pathogens would have easy access to the research and can essentially build off of the results. This can potentially help in various breakthroughs that can save lives.

 

1. Economic Impacts: The solution would not have drastic economic impacts since the costs associated with the research would most likely be covered by the project budget. Educating and buying snacks should not be that big of an expense considering the fact that it would help the researchers get better data as the participants would have a better understanding of what the research is about. There is a possibility of good economic growth if the research is used by companies in Lesotho to manufacture products to help reduce waterborne diseases.

 

1. Social Impacts: The solution involves a lot of interaction between the researchers and the participants. So there is a possibility that there might be both positive and negative social impact. For example,  if the researchers fail to comply with the IRB protocols then not only would it jeopardize the data but also make the participants hesitant about helping them. On the other hand, positive consequences can also come out of following all of the right protocols and respecting the participants. For example, the participants would feel appreciated and would happily participate in the research and the researchers are more likely to get accurate results.

 

1. Environmental Impacts: There could be a potentially negative impact on the environment since introducing chemicals into the environment to kill the harmful pathogens might also disrupt wildlife in the water. Other implications could be that the water runoffs could potentially harm plants and crops in nearby areas.