The Conundrum in Lesotho

krp222 on

1: The facts

 

Researchers are going into Lesotho for two weeks (a team of 10) to research the life cycle and characteristics of a pathogen found only in this region’s water. In order to do this, they need the community’s assistance to show them water sources as well as methods of storing water. The end goal is publication, profiling of the pathogen, and development of additives to counteract the pathogen.

 

Assumption: We have IRB approval and approval from the Lesotho government for our venture.

 

2/3: The Stakeholders

  1. Academic University: They want recognition for their research (promote their personal brand). They might also want to attract prospective students.
  2. You (research team): To gain recognition from your field of work and a publication. Begin the development of chemical additives to make the water safe to drink. It could also be more professional because you might be bound to do the research because of the company you work with.
  3. People of Lesotho: They would want to help the researchers with the expectation that the researchers would help educate them about safe drinking water. Maybe they would want to build partnerships with people from a different country/organization. However, there might be a problem with this because they might give you information to satisfy you.
  4. Academic partnerships/Funders: To be apart of a publication and as a result of that gain more money which they can use to fund more projects, our findings will add to a wider body of knowledge on the pathogen and their reputation

 

4: Potential Approaches

  1. Duty-Based Thinking
    1. It only seems right to compensate the participants because we are using their knowledge for research purposes 
  2. Virtue Based 
    1. Because the citizens of Lesotho are being generous enough to help researchers 

 

  1. Potential Solution 1: Provide sufficient financial compensation to community members who provide critical assistance and knowledge to the project 
    1. Pros
      1. Receiving financial assistance if they missed normal work to help the project 
      2. Incentive enthusiastic participation (easier to convince someone to participate)
      3. If we pay people, they are more likely to share more water sources 
    2. Cons
      1. Takes away from the funding of the project that could be used for something else 
      2. Providing too much or too little financial compensation might seem rude or undermining 
      3. May have too many volunteers which could create saturation of information 
  2. Potential Solution  2: Provide educational compensation (education around the current status of their drinking water and its impact on their health, along with sharing our future findings) to community members who provide critical assistance and knowledge to the project 
    1. Pros
      1. Will help educate the community members about the safety of drinking water in their community 
      2. Those members can educate others about the safety of drinking water to spread awareness 
      3. Creates more empowerment and inclusion in the project 
    2. Cons
      1. The community may already know the water is unsafe and will feel that the researchers believe they are uneducated 
      2. Information on safe drinking water may not be perceived as correct based on cultural beliefs and level of science knowledge 
      3. May create panic as community members feel that they have no sources of safe drinking water and cause unrest.  
  3. Potential Solution  3: We don’t compensate them but distribute the additive that is developed to the community 
    1. Pros
      1. There is no unfairness in financial compensation to the participants 
      2. We are still giving back to the community but not to the participants directly  
      3. Save money
    2. Cons
      1. The willing participants do not directly benefit from our use of their time or labor
      2. If we do not succeed, then there is no benefit to anybody
      3. People are unwilling to participate because they are not being compensated

Possible solutions:

  1. Publishing the research results in an open-source journal 
  2. Talking to the leaders of communities and establishing some sort of small incentives for the community members 
  3. When selecting participants, consult regional leadership and get their recommendations.

5/6: The biggest reference I used, in this case, was the principles of The Belmont Report: beneficence, respect for persons, and justice. By putting these ethical codes into the context of the Lesotho case, I think the potential solution2 (educational compensation) would be the best approach. In the critical application of this approach, we would inform the regional leadership of the towns and tribes we work with about the conditions of the water and our intentions to learn more about the pathogen that lives within their water source. I think being open in our intentions and sharing knowledge would build trust and participants would be willing to share their knowledge with us. Furthermore, I recommend that we incorporate the third solution by sharing the findings with the community and use our work to get a grant to treat the water we sampled. I used Giardia treatment processes as a cost reference for this – which can be treated by filtration, UV light systems, reverse osmosis or ozone. Depending on the size of the source and the feasibility of the treatment (you can’t filter a whole lake) it would cost $600 for treatment. When our publications are successful, we can easily get grants to give back to the community that helped us research.

 

7: The community would be more aware of the purity of their water and what to look for (assuming they did not before). We would be able to access the water sources with the help of willing participants. We would filter some (if not all) water sources. Our successful venture would build the reputation of our research and we would be awarded grants and awards.

Leave a Reply