Case Study 2

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

• There is an assumption of approval from a local ethical review board. 
• This is not a human subjects study 
• The water resource is uncontaminated and in its natural state 
• Need approval to go into these private lands
• The goal of this project is to understand the life cycle of certain pathogens
• Research requires assistance 
• We must ascertain the value of identifying these locations to the research study itself. Without it, would the research be possible? Alternatively, are there other means by which the same information could be accessed? (should time, energy, and knowledge be compensated?) 
• The result of this research can lead to chemical additives to make the water safer to drink.
• One ethical issue is that the researchers are going into communities simply to just find pathogens. When they do find these pathogens will they bother to report back to the community about what they have found? 
• Another ethical issue is the lack of care for compensating the community for their time.
• The other ethical issue is that the community might not be okay with having chemical additives to improve the water quality

 

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

• • Community members (larger society and those immediately dependent on these water sources beyond drinking water( i.e fisheries, markets, tourism, etc.) → primary 
  • Water infrastructure support 
  • Researchers for this project (i.e Epidemiologists, Water pathogens expert(s), regional health experts) → primary 

• Other researchers studying pathogens (including journals) →  Tertiary 

• The Lesotho Government (Representatives and policy makers) → Secondary 
• Potential funders/ Funding agencies → Secondary 
• The University → Secondary 
• Larger healthcare system → Secondary 

 

 Step 3: Assess the motivations of the Stakeholders

• Community members may want to know what is in their water and how it impacts themselves and those around them.
• Water infrastructure support may need to adjust or repair some of the systems if it is proven that the pathogens are coming from the flaws in the equipment.
• Lesothon researchers are inclined to engage in research regarding water-borne pathogens for three reasons: increased publication material (intellectual contribution), a general contribution to the health of Lesothonians, and inquiry to the formation, life-span, and impact of these pathogens specifically . Researchers are generally motivated by their investigative inquiry (typically within a specific field) and sense of larger impact. Providing foundational knowledge in this regard contributes to both of those missions 
• The University will get credibility and good recognition from the publications.
• Funding agencies would want publications and it will stimulate the economy and intellectual contributions associated with the project. This might increase brand recognition 

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 

• Provide some sort of compensation to a specific person in the community that will drive you to the water access points. This will require additional funding.

• • Pro: Community members will be more willing to participate in the study
  • Con: You risk the possibility of coercion, participants would expect compensation for future visits. Funding may not be feasible or reliable. 

 

• State from the beginning that there will be no compensation for their time and see who will still be willing to take you around the community. This will require the researchers to explain their research.

• • Pro: This will be completely voluntary and people will do only as much as they want to so it does not risk the possibility of coercion 
  • Con: You risk it being a human subject study as well or you may not get full effort

 

• • Research water access points in the community before fieldwork and then use google maps to find the locations. This is assuming that all water access points have recorded GPS coordinates. 
  • Identify populations with the highest prevalence of individuals exhibiting symptoms associated with the pathogen and then collect samples from those local water resources. Assumes there is a decently organized authority tracking these symptoms and that the data is reliable (Government or organization(s) collaboration). The  
    • Pro: this narrows down the research rather than involving the whole community
    • Con: Because of the recent pandemic, there are challenges associated with the health and economic sectors. Additionally, an influx of new COVID variants and strains has made tracking COVID a challenge (WorldBank). Similar issues may be the case for other diseases and viruses that are either being masked by COVID or otherwise ignored.  
      • #you risk it being a human subject study
      • #data is most likely not reliable
      • #assumes you know what this pathogen is ‘already capable of’
  • There are over a thousand researches done on Lesotho water and sanitation that  could be a reference point for the researchers rather than relying on the community to access these 

• Share the information on the pathogens found with the local hospitals/government

• • Pro: the research actually contributes to improving the community that the pathogens affect. It is easier to educate the hospitals and governments on the danger of the pathogens and the possible health impacts than deliver the information to all the consumers of water individually. 
  • Con: There is no guarantee that any actions will be taken. The institutions might not have any resources to address the issues.  

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

• Examine previous studies on pathogens and their impacts on communities and see how they include the communities( or not)
• Examine who you are as an outsider entering a community that is not your own.
• Consulting water holding/filtration facilities about common ways they ensure safe water
• Reflect and research where pollution plays into the problem and where the level of control you have over that is
• Consult educators on the ways they spread awareness about water safety

 

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. 

•  Identify top priority communities and target those
  • Previously identifying target populations through prevalence data would limit the dependency on community members for guidance and ultimately the ethical questions of providing compensation and if so, how much? Once key areas within the region are identified using relevant data, those near the water source can be vetted to identify which sources most people utilize (most relevant to identifying specificity and characteristics of the pathogen itself and in the population). Moreover, if needed, community members with invaluable knowledge, information not known by a majority or considered common knowledge, could be compensated for but this would only be after determining their information is credible, necessary, and relevant to the study. This process ensures that the quality of data collection is pertinent to the inquiry and ethically sound. Compared to other methods, such as those identified in class such as compensating community members to identity an area, upfront, may not be as reliable because (i) one assumes that the information being shared is accurate and most relevant (ii) would incur greater costs as in this model, each person spoken to would expect compensation, and (iii) provides logistical complications that may impede productivity.

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

 

For this study there are major economic, social, and environmental implications. The study itself aims to identify a water-born pathogen affecting large populations of Lesotho. Economically, understanding the pathogen would ultimately decrease the burden placed upon healthcare systems treating individuals suffering from the effects of the pathogen. Provided that Lesotho has already had increased hardship as a result of COVID-19 providing a solution for this issue may impact the economy as a whole by reducing burden of care. Additionally, utilizing the data collected by the Lesotho government or local agencies would emphasize the importance of data collection, though not a direct effect, there is an incentive (intellectually and economically) for data collection (accurate and reliable) to continue to be collected to allow researchers to general intellectual contributions which improve standards of living in-country. Similarly, Environmentally, the research may lead to the creator/identification of filtration devices, and synthesization of treatment for affects. Potentially filtering the water post-collection or providing a large-pre collection filtering (physical, chemical, etc.) has potential environmental implications for the wildlife in the water source. While it may be better for human consumption, there may be biological and  physiological differences with species in the water resource(s) which are dependent on this pathogen ()i.e food chain implications, symbiotic relationships, etc.). The decision to examine prevalence data by means of identifying where to gather water samples has no direct impact on the implications, only the methods and solution of the collection itself.