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 travelling 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 development of chemical additives to make the water safe to drink. Is it ethical to conduct this research study? What will you do next? 

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation and clearly state the ethical issue.

• The research team (10 people, including you) is going to Lesotho for two weeks to conduct research on the pathogen in their water source
• The goal of the research is to investigate the lifecycle and chemical/biological features of disease-causing pathogen
• There are no stated benefits to the locals in their research proposal
• The results from this research could be used to develop chemical additives to make the water safe to drink.
• The researchers will release publications on their findings of the pathogen
• The researchers will need the help of the local people to locate where the people obtain and store their water.
• Assume we have all necessary approvals needed for research
• Ethical issue: As of right now, the locals are not benefitting from the research in any way, and the academic researchers have no intentions to pay the community members.

Step 2 & 3: Define the Stakeholders and assess their motivations 

• Academic researchers:
  • Test the water in Lesotho for disease-causing pathogens
  • Understand the lifecycle and characteristics of the pathogen
  • Write several publications from the research study → further your professional career
  • Possibly develop chemical additives to make the water safe to drink
  • Patent discover to possibly profit from findings 
  • Driven by social impact or fame in helping the local community
• Locals 
  • Provide location of water sources 
  • By providing access to the water sources, they contribute to the development of chemical additives in hopes of getting access to them for safe consumption of water
• Your research university/institution:
  • The findings could add to their reputation, making them highly regarded
  • Strengthen new/existing partnership with other funding agencies
  • Open rooms for future collaborations within the area/country (e.g., new ventures)
  • Create opportunities for students to gain experience on social impact projects (and make impact) 
• Sponsors of the research:
  • Want to gain the benefit of discovering a new pathogen
  • Gain the opportunity to develop chemical additives against any harmful chemicals that are found in the water
  • Can potentially earn monetary benefit from the chemical additives that will be developed
  • Gain a better reputation and have their name attached in the breakthrough of helping treat water issues in another country
  • Publicity that will potentially aid in gaining funding for other projects or investigations
• Local government: 
  • Make sure the research team does not cause any harm (mentally or physically) to its own citizens (for example, poison the water sources, etc)
  • Validates whether or not the water source in the area is safe to drink for the community
  • Ensure that the citizens have accessibility to the research
  • Ensure the area have some sort of benefit to the chemical additives that is developed if pathogens are found in the water
  • Building/expanding relationships with other funding agencies/countries 

Step 4: Formulate three alternative solutions 

1. Potential Solution: Get a map to find the water source (Use sources like Google Earth which 3-D renders Earth)

• Pros:
  • Not have to rely on locals for help/take time out of their day
  • Less of an obligation to pay back locals in some way
• Cons:
  • Maps may not be updated
  • Local knowledge can be really useful, and we wouldn’t have that in this scenario
  • Not using locals can create distrust with the researchers – conflicts can complicate things
  • Do not have access or knowledge to places that the town is storing water (the storage area could be a potential location where the pathogen is entering the water source)
• Ethical Principle: 
  • Concern for others: we would be doing the work on our own, reducing disturbance among the locals, keeping them in mind

2. Ask the government to assign some local leaders and supervisors to assist the research team to find the locations of the disease-causing pathogenic water 

• Pros:
  • Local leaders might also help facilitate the communication between the researchers and the locals 
  • Local government permission makes the research less intrusive 
  • Locals may trust us more if their government is helping us
  • Researchers will obtain guides or a map of the locations of the water source and storage location
  • Research team is still able to effectively conduct research
• Cons:
  • Might be more work to set up beforehand
  • Might cost a lot of money to train locals to properly extract the water sample (assuming locals do not have the education to do so)
  • Local government may not welcome the research team to conduct investigation on their water
• Ethical Principle: 
  • Respect for others: we would be communicating with local leaders to get their insight and expertise on the community, respecting them and their culture

3. Receive help from the locals and in exchange offer the local government access to the research publications and a promise to provide/implement water purification system to clean their water if harmful pathogens are discovered (could be through an organization such as Engineers Without Borders, which does many water purification projects in other countries); another possible implication is that the clean water can also increase tourism!

• Pros:
  • Locals benefit! They will be happy that their water is clean 🙂 
  • Locals will have access to the researcher’s findings
  • A relationship between the institution and the local government can be created, which may help in possible future endeavors 
  • Research institution (assuming it’s a University in this case) receives prestige through findings and project
  • Tourism can bring more pr ofit for the government, which could be a good motivator for why they should allow us to do research for them in order to create a potential solution for their contaminated water
  • Potentially create more jobs for locals as a result of the success of the tourism
• Cons: 
  • Cost a lot more money to implement – promise to clean water
  • Not many foreigners might know that Lesotho is a tourist worthy-destination (such a beautiful country!), so the government might not be able to afford the promotions to advertise their country as a tourist destination and they could have a low tourist turn-out.
• Ethical Principle: 
  • Promise Keeping & Trustworthiness: we will keep our promise to the community and earn their trust through them having access to all our research and us aiding them in implementing a water purification system. The possible increased tourism will also lead to an increased economy in Lesotho.

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate

• Peers: listening to other classmates talk about their thoughts and ideas, helped with creation of some of our ideas and overall collaboration 
• Inner reflection: my own knowledge of implementing water purification systems in other countries led to my decision, as well as my own values
• Locals: Treat a local for lunch to find out their thoughts and determine which approach would be the most appropriate solution.

Step 6: Select the best course of action

• In my opinion, the best course of action is alternative 3, offering the local government access to the research, and making a promise to implement a water purification system to clean their water if harmful pathogens are discovered.
  •  I came to this conclusion based on the fact that I personally would want to play a part in helping other people’s lives, in addition to conducting the research itself. 
• I think transparency is really important, and if we are going into a country that isn’t ours and receiving help from locals, they should have free access to our findings. This can also increase trust between us, the locals, and Lesotho’s government. Lesotho’s government would be more inclined to trust us and our research institution in future endeavors if we are transparent about everything. 
• The research institution involved would receive prestige after the publications made on the findings, so they would be happy with this solution. 
• Sponsors would be a part of making a breakthrough in the finding of the pathogen and would also receive some credit for the findings since their names are attached to the project, making them satisfied with this approach. 
• I’m the Fundraising Chair in Lehigh’s Engineers Without Borders (EWB), so I know that there are organizations, such as EWB, that invest in water purification projects in other countries. I also know that there are fundraising initiatives and donors out there who would donate to a cause like this. This was one of the factors that helped me choose this as the best alternative.
• The locals and local government would be happy with this alternative, as it benefits them too. 
  • They would have access to our findings, so they may conduct additional research with our findings as a basis. 
  • They would also have pathogen-free water, which I know is a huge benefit for Lesotho, as a lot of their water is not safe for consumption, especially in rural areas. In fact, a study by the WHO found that 18% of children under the age of 5 have had diarrheal illness due to contaminated water, and poor sanitation has caused 1.6 million child deaths in the country, since 84% of children live in rural areas with unsafe water. 
  • The possibility of increased tourism could be a positive or a negative for the locals, depending on how they feel about it. Some people may be happy that they are receiving tourists, as this would lead to an increase in jobs and money in their economy, while others might want to keep their peace and avoid new people coming in. This is something that can be decided later, after the research and water sanitation system is implemented.
• Seen through the analysis above, alternative 3 addresses the ethical issue identified in step 1, the lack of the locals benefitting from the research.

Step 7: Impact of economic, social and environmental aspects.

• Economic:
  • Funding: could be positive or negative economic impact depending on the amount of funding secured. With the recruitment of an organization such as EWB-USA to help in funding the venture, it should be easier to secure the money for the water sanitation project.
  • In Lesotho, the research findings may lead to clean water which means less deaths caused by water, which in turn leads to more people alive to give work and contribute to the economy 
  • If increasing tourism is something the local government chooses to pursue, the traffic of new people coming in would increase the country’s economy since they would be spending money in country 
• Social:
  • Lesotho’s government and locals will have a mutually beneficial relationship with the researchers, research institution, and sponsors; trust between them will be created, possibly leading to future endeavors together
  • The people of Lesotho will be healthier and happier! Overall wellbeing in the population will increase since everyone will have access to clean water, and there will be less childhood mortality 😀 
  • People of Lesotho who are curious about the research will have access to the findings, and can conduct research of their own using ours as a starting point. This could also spark intellectual curiosity in the locals, maybe causing them to pursue more education. 
• Environmental:
  • The water in Lesotho is clean!
  • The chemical additive to combat the pathogen would be found and can maybe be used in other countries that have similar pathogens. This could lead to an increase in water security.