(Lesotho Water Sources)

• Compensation of community members?
• Beneficence, respect of persons, justice (belmont report)
• How will this help the people involved?
• Does this sound like a hit and run researcher
• How can the process be conducted such that it would be more fair or create more good/ positive impact to the community?
• How would you communicate what you’re doing and the basis of your research to the locals if they don’t know about it or understand what you’re doing?
• How is the water being tested? In the lake or collecting samples to take it back for study?
• Are you being culturally sensitive and respecting the local customs? For example, if the areas you wanted to study were sacred or important
• Is this approved by a university or organization, do you have IRB approval
• Stakeholders:
  • University
  • Researchers
  • Funders (research funding agency like NSF organizations)
  • Locals that help you with the study
  • Locals of Lesotho (big picture)
• After the study is published, what are you doing, what can you do to create benefit for the community
• We are trying to negotiate entry for this study
• Khanjan thinks this is how most research gets done, would probably be ethical, research should be on a free to see platform so it is not behind a $130 firewall

 

Step 1: Facts

• There is a disease-causing pathogen only found in a small region of Lesotho 
• The testing is simple, but the trip/equipment will cost money, and community assistance is required
  • We are studying the life cycle/characteristics of a certain pathogen
• The people in Lesotho know where (all?) the water sources are 
• We are expected to write some publications on what we find from our research
• Characterizing pathogens can help further research into how to make water safer to drink
• Do we know if the pathogen is specifically present in the community water sources? 
• Do we know that there is no risk of further water contamination from the studies we are conducting?
• What are Lesotho’s environmental government policies on water treatment, dumping, and anything else related to water.
• Assumptions: Got IRB approval, and approval from Lesotho to do research there

 

Ethical Issue: 

• Is this study just an example of hit and run research or does this research actually help the people of Lesotho or have social value in general?
• Balance between ethics and rigor, not doing study rigorously enough is an ethical issue too

 

Step 2: Stakeholders

• Researchers (academics)
• The University of the academics
• Funders of the research/Government Agency
• Villagers of Lesotho
• Healthcare System/Providers (secondary/tertiary)
• Academic Journal

Step 3: Motivations

• Researchers -> academic clout😤😤😤, maintain jobs, create positive impact through their research/findings
• The University of the academics -> maintain their reputation globally, advancing knowledge & delivering value to society
• Villagers -> obtain clean water supply, stay healthy, not have their lifestyle completely disrupted, lower risk of contracting disease, building connections and relationships, possible economic development w/ cleaner water in tourism and exporting water to South Africa
• Funders/Government Agency -> stake in developing an additive or water cleaning system, obtain more grants for future work, research might help their projects and development, creates a positive image of corporate social responsibility, develop their brand in this area
• Healthcare system/providers in Lesotho -> less burden from waterborne diseases, more resources to devote to other conditions
• Academic Journal -> acquire new research (groundbreaking) that adds to general knowledge of pathogens, build reputation
• Build a relationship with the locals. Future developments and research can be 

Step 4: Solutions

• Conduct experiments on how the pathogen affects health. Experiments would include testing the water with pathogens on rats. 
• Select guides which are knowledgeable of water sources; typically women
• Test water from multiple sources; in villages with different socioeconomic statuses.
• Only collect the water samples in vials when doing on ground work; test the water later in labs.
• Educate the villagers of Lesotho about your findings while you are there about things they can do in their capacities & after the water has been tested, and help them towards finding a solution to any disease-causing pathogens you found
  • Sharing information and results that would benefit the people of Lesotho (+those downstream of Lesotho) after the research gets published 
  • Email the papers to the heads of communities to show that something came out of the research they assisted in 
  • Maximizing clinical value & making sure there is positive social impact/return
• Identify the source or the pathogen. Where/how is it contaminating the lake.
• Conduct simple examinations on locals to identify symptoms and effects from drinking the lake’s water. 
• Drink the water. Be your own subject of testing. 😤😤😤
• Attempt to provide a temporary cleaning solution or import purified water.
• Scan the area of the lake. Identify behaviors from the locals that could be contributing to the pathogen. 
• Request the right to access the water sources from legislation/leaders of each village and explain what you are doing/plan to do/and how you are testing, negotiating for access
  • Appeal to community health workers in Lesotho who understand what you are doing and can explain it to the community 
• Negotiations and incentives are a way of reducing what you are taking personally and providing a return which addresses the issue of beneficence
  • Also addresses the rigor of the study because you’re making sure you contact and get information from people who are educated about your research and who can provide you with accurate information
  • Ensuring that you do the study right, focus on legitimacy

Step 5: Additional

• NSPE Code of Ethics: This legislature enforces that engineers “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public” in their work. Hence, an engineer need note this when debating the ethics of this study.
• Who has approved the study? The university? Has it received IRB approval?
  • IRB Ethics:
    • Social or Scientific Value
    • Scientific Validity
    • Fair Subject Selection
    • Favorable Risk – Benefit
    • Independent Review
    • Informed Consent
    • Respect for Potential and Enrolled Subjects
• Belmont Report -> beneficence, respect for persons, justice
  • Are you protecting the anonymity of the volunteers if they wish for it?

 

Step 6: Best Action

• How do we make this study ethical? How can we compensate the community members (material or immaterial) in order to justify the inherent risks of this study?
• Integrating some educational compensation seems like a requisite for this study. The researchers are going into a foreign country claiming to be researching a disease causing pathogen. Some of the locals may not know/believe where disease comes from and may attribute it to witchcraft or a higher power. The researchers should either educate the locals on water purification procedures (and giving them any necessary equipment), educate them on the specific pathogen they are researching, or both!

 

Step 7: Venture Implications

• Improve community health
• Opportunity to market water treatment / cleaning solution
• Adding to knowledge of waterborne pathogens
• Potential positive or negative environmental implications if water treatment solution is derived from this research and introduced to the community
• Potential employment/volunteering of locals into protecting the lake and working with our venture apply our solutions.