Fall 2020 Week 2

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible. 

 

• There is a disease-causing pathogen unique to the water sources in Lesotho.
• Testing is simple, but the cost of sending trained researchers is expensive
• We want to examine the water in Lesotho
• We need the cooperation of the locals
• Our success is dependent upon the accuracy/quality/quantity of the data we are able to collect in the time we have been allotted.
• We are expecting to publish our findings to help further research into making safer drinking water.
• Ethical issue:  What will the people of the community in Lesotho gain from cooperating with the researchers for providing transportation or guidance to the water sources?
  • No short term benefits 
  • There is also no clear long term benefits (there could be  but not guaranteed) 

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

• Locals (Community in Lesotho who is accessing water sources)
  • We should leave the community unchanged, or better, than we found it.
  • Their lives should stay the same or be better (from their perspective)
  • Building relationships with other cultures.
  • Decreasing possible risk of being exposed to disease-causing pathogens 
  • Attracting outsiders to Lesotho→ This research will make it public that they are actively working towards safer water sources 
• World population (people who are infected with the disease-causing pathogen)
  • Getting a better understanding of how to treat water sources and the pathogens that could be found in them so that communities beyond Lesotho could protect themselves from future outbreaks
• Researchers (The 10 researchers who will be directly working with the Lesotho communities, You)
  • Reputation
  • Credibility 
  • Personally driven to help Lesotho communities 
  • Learn about the pathogen
•  University (The individuals who are publishing the data)
  • all of the papers that are published with the data will be credited to the university
    • reputation
    • Credibility
      • Develop their “brand” and excellence for future ventures
        • More funding opportunities
• Drug company/funding (Company that will produce the chemical additives for the sources of water in Lesotho)
  • Help people who are negatively affected by the pathogen
    • If it costs less to kill the pathogen than cure the disease
  • Improve drinking water
  • Reputation
  • Credibility 
  • Financial gains 
• Research community (Scholars, educators, and specialists invested in the literary contributions to their respected communities)
  • They will be invested in the accuracy of the data methodology
    • Credibility

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on information available, using

basic ethical core values as guide

Solution 1

• Research the locals before the trip or make connections with individuals who understand the local customs so as to make the venture beneficial for both you, the researcher and the individuals in the communities you are visiting

Ethical Principle/code

• Do no harm (beneficence)

Pros

• We get to learn about another culture
• The locals get exposure to our culture(s) and intentions

Cons

• It will take time up front before the trip to learn about the culture
• It might be difficult to find someone who understands the culture

Solution 2

• Incentivize locals to participate in the research
• Teach the locals how to test the water

Ethical Principle/Code 

• Beneficence

Pros

• Local participants
• They know the area

Cons

• Incorrect collection procedures
• Unreliable data

 

Solution 3:

• Incentivize local healthcare workers to assist in the research process

Ethical Principle/Code

• Beneficence

Pros

• True collaboration
• Local healthcare workers add the necessary community connection that might help bridge the gap between researchers and local individuals
• Mutual benefit. (1) Researchers get accurate, reliable data;(2) healthcare workers get to learn about water-borne pathogens and hygiene; (3) locals learn about hygiene which might lead to better quality of life.

Cons

• The research might not lead to a viable solution to the pathogen
• Developing relationships with healthcare workers will cost more time and money
• Locals might not understand the science 

 

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

Talk to the important people in the community to see if they are willing to help the researchers connect with the “right” people to get us to the water. Khanjan’s scenario where he finds his top four locals to help by meeting many, by offering an incentive (pre-approved by the community leader) and then have the community help identify the best helpers might be a great way for us to get together with the healthcare professionals who are most likely to benefit from a collaboration with us. An organization like Doctors without Borders might also be a good resource to help us develop the necessary relationships. 

 

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that which satisfies the highest core ethical values.

Incentivizing local healthcare workers to assist in the research process is the most ethical option.

This is the best course of action because educating people is very important. Lesotho is a small, developing country that would benefit greatly from more modern hygiene practices. Having trained researchers do the sampling, and teaching the local healthcare workers to do the sampling would insure reliable data and might lead to future research if the healthcare workers learn the necessary skills. This education, in addition to other compensation, would go a long way to ensuring a continued relationship with the healthcare workers. The community would benefit from the research with healthier drinking water, if the pathogen can be identified and an additive engineered to neutralize it. The local healthcare system would benefit because it would not have to treat patients sick from the pathogen. The local community might also benefit from exporting their new, healthy water. 

 

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.

 The implications of utilizing local healthcare workers to conduct research can greatly impact the living conditions of the community.

• Technology: The research is meant to help researchers understand the mechanics of the water-borne pathogen. If researchers are able to understand how the pathogen is transmitted, an additive might be developed to clean the water. This technology might be transferable to other water-borne pathogens.
• Economic: If the locals no longer suffer from the disease caused by this water-borne pathogen, they will be able to work more and spend less on healthcare. If the additive is something available locally, this might also add to the economy. If the additive can’t be made locally or if the ingredients are too expensive, it will have ethical implications.
• Social: If the additive changes the taste or color of the water, the locals might not be convinced that it is healthier than the natural water. If the research leads to an acceptable solution to the problem, both the researchers and their university will gain credibility.
• Environmentally: The additive that kills the water-borne pathogen might also kill wildlife species. If the additive is effective, the locals might be more inclined to sell their resource, which might lead to a shortage of water for the community.