Fall Blog Post #2: Lesotho

In this case study, I am helming a team of researchers traveling to different communities in the Sub-Saharan country of Lesotho. We will be there for two weeks testing community water sources for a disease-causing pathogen. We will have to rely on the community members to assist us in showing us there water sources. The main dilemma in this study is whether or not our study would constitute “hit and run” research that wouldn’t benefit the community and therefore have an uneven distribution of benefits.

The following are stakeholders in conducting this study:

  1. My team of academic researchers and I: Our motivation is to publish a credible study that will make an impact on the scientific community and inspire real change.
  2. The academic institution we represent: The institution we are a part of is our primary financial backer, and as such will hope to minimize the cost of the trip while maximizing the value. They hope that our work will lead to published academic works and create tangible change in the process.
  3. Community members: The members of the community would like to eliminate the disease causing pathogen in their water source as they want their community to be as safe as possible for all its members. They also would like to ensure they are fairly compensated for any work they take part in.
  4. Community Chief/Different levels of government: The chief or leader of the community wants the best for his community members as it his job not to allow anyone to be taken advantage of or harmed by any outsiders. He is concerned for the safety of everyone under his care. The different levels of government share these concerns, they are just slightly changed at each level up the ladder. In addition the national government in particular is concerned about their image in the international community and don’t simply wish to be viewed as a charity case.
  5. Publication: The publication our research will be submitted in desires genuine, quality research that will expand the scientific community’s collective knowledge. They also desire a study that will be marketable and help promote the publication.
  6. Chemists that would will make any additives to add to the water: At the end of our research, there will be experts who have to turn our revelations into an actual chemical solution to kill the pathogens in the water. Their primary goal is for us to collect quality research to ensure they have enough information to create this solution. In addition, they would like a demonstrated market for their solution, and eventually a financial incentive for creating and distributing the solution.

My group in class formulated three solutions to this ethical dilemma, in each case we opted to complete the research.

Solution A: The research team would have the community members show us their water sources and allow us to collect samples. In exchange, we would provide them with fair market-value monetary compensation for their time

Solution B: The research team would still be shown by the community members to their water sources. However, we would offer no monetary compensation and instead simply share with them our gratitude and assure them the completion of a successful study is in their best interest.

Solution C: We would be shown by the community members to their water sources. Rather than offering monetary compensation we would specifically mention their community in our research and give them all due credit for their assistance in our study.

The best course of action in this scenario is Solution A. Although it is unfortunate to have to spend money on a task we could receive help with for free, it is imperative we collect quality research. This can’t be guaranteed without fair-value compensation. Continuing with this course of action ensures both major parties, the researchers and the community members, are both compensated properly, with quality research and real monetary value. Utilizing consequence-based thinking in this scenario makes the most sense, as relying simply on virtue or duty and hoping the community members are willing to help us out of the goodness of their hearts is not practical when so much is at stake. We are only in country two weeks and must gather as much quality research as possible. Additionally, although all methods imply (in a perfect world) a successful study leading to a successful additive to fight the pathogen, this is far from guaranteed to occur. In the event it doesn’t, the community is left with no tangible benefit from the study, and simply left with feeling they had provided good will to strangers.

This decision will require more expenses during the trip from our principle financial backers, i.e. the institution, who likely won’t be happy that we chose to pay this community rather than opting for an option that would’ve required no monetary compensation. However, it will ensure quality research as well as fair compensation for all parties in this study. With the research being of high quality, we should have a very compelling case for publication, that would lead to a great amount of innovation in the chemical additive space to create a solution to fight these pathogens. In the end, all parties will be satisfied with the result and the study will be a success following Solution A.

 

Leave a Reply