1. Facts Ethical Issue– You need how to decide how to acquire indigenous knowledge and how you will compensate the people who help you. Also, you need to decide how to select the people that help you. Then you  need to decide how you will compensate, 
    1. You are planning not to pay the locals for helping you find their water sources
    2. Lesotho is a small developing country in Africa
    3. The study requires significant assistance from the community.
    4. Several publications are expected from this research study
    5. The pathogen is found only in this region of Lesotho
    6. Other researchers/scientists can use this foundational knowledge to provide a long-term benefit to the locals
  2. Stakeholders & motivations
    1. Scientists/ Researchers
      1. Recognition, helping create a profile of the pathogen
    2. Funders
      1. Recognition, profit, 
    3. Local natives aiding in the research
      1. Monetary gain, simply being proud of their community, just wanting to help people who take an interest in their community, seeking more recognition for themselves or their community, build connections, the potential elimination of pathogen in the future
    4. Population of Lesotho
      1. Eradication of the pathogen
    5. The University
      1. Recognition to uphold or heighten the reputation
  3. Solutions, add ethical principle for each
    1. Survey CHWs from all parts of the country
      1. Separate each survey by PHU each CHW is based
      2. Community health workers are nominated by their peers to serve in this capacity: thus, it makes sense to survey CHWs as representatives of their communities.
      3. Pros
        1. There are a limited number of workers and you gain the trust of the community
      4. Cons
        1. They might not have the knowledge you require and what if they do not exist
      5. Ethical principle 
        1. You are cutting to the chase of who will help you and there is a limited number of workers so compensation will be reasonable. 
    2. Survey random samples of individual community members on where they get their water instead of looking for specific people to do it (which may also not cover all the bases whereas surveying many people may) and thus, providing a smaller incentive for those who do take the survey rather than a larger monetary incentive for a few people  to take us around
      1. This smaller incentive could be a lunch or a snack as a token of gratitude if the goal really is to not pay anyone monetarily
      2. Pros
        1. You are not excluding everyone for participating and you gain more knowledge
      3. Ethical principle
        1. You are allowing everyone to participate and gaining vast indigenous knowledge
    3. Request a meeting with the local government to formulate a relationship of trust and relay the research to the community with the intention of educating and appointing  the appropriate community members to aid in the study
      1. Pro
        1. You are making yourself a trusted individual or group in the community, you are educating the community.
      2. Cons
        1. The local government might not believe what you are researching or they might not believe your beliefs
      3. Ethical principle
        1. This is the most respectable way of approaching the community without causing any disrespect.
  4. Ethics
    1. Should we compensate the locals for helping?
    2. Do most researchers pay helpers in the research?
    3. What difference is there with the help of the locals and the researchers? Don’t both of then valuable information and skills that are crucial to the study? So why should one receive all the credit and compensation
  5. Solution
    1. I believe that the best solution is surveying the community health workers and compensating them for their knowledge because of the low implications it creates. Community health workers are often entrusted individuals or nominated citizens of communities. This makes the path to entry easier because as the researchers we are not only gaining the trust of the CHWs but also the locals who support them. By formulating a relationship with them, we are essentially creating one with the rest of the community
      1. This decision creates benefits for most of the stakeholders. For the researchers, we are clearing a simple path to the knowledge we require without having to act as obnoxious outsiders. As soon as we formulate a relationship with the CHWs, we become recognized in the communities. Then, for our funders and sponsoring university, there is no extreme additional cost that needs to be made. There is a limited number of CHWs so the compensation will be limited to the relative number of workers. Lastly, by creating an easier path of entry the research for creating chemicals to kill the pathogen happens faster, which would play as an incentive for the local population of the community. Since they will be acquiring better drinking water. 
      2. The main issue that can arise from this solution is the possibility that the CHWs do not have the knowledge that you require. Additionally, the CHWs might not exist in certain communities. However, most communities often have entrusted government officials or leaders that you can ask instead. 
  6. Implications
    1. The main implication of our solution to future ventures is a new standard of conducting field research when indigenous knowledge is needed. Instead of taking different routes to incentivize locals, you can just cut to the chase and interview community health workers. This solution works better than just surveying all the individuals because then you have to compensate everyone that helps you. In this case, we may only need 6 helpers but since everyone wants to be paid, how will you decide?

Leave a Reply