Water Pathogen in Lesotho
Step 1: The facts of the situation
- 10 researches are traveling village to village in Lesotho, a developing country in Africa, to conduct research for 2 weeks
- The goal of the research is to understand the life cycle and characteristics of a pathogen found in the water in the region
- The method is to collect samples to test the water sources in each village for the pathogen which requires significant assistance from the community members (not paid)
- The results of the research are expected to be used in multiple publications and can be used to develop a chemical additive which will make the water safe to drink
- The ethical issue is if this research should be conducted in its current form. Is it ethical to conduct this research requiring help from communities without compensation?
Step 2: The problem and the stakeholders
The problem is whether or not it is ethical to presume community members will take their time and help with research just because it may help them in the future.
- The 10 researchers
- The people living in Lesotho
- Those helping with the research itself have more stake
- The government of Lesotho
- The institution that would publish the research
- The institution that would implement any solution
- The individual(s)/institution(s) funding the research and/or solution
Step 3: The stakeholders’ motivations
- The researchers are likely motivated by a variety of reasons. Most are likely looking to build their CVs with a unique research experience. Some are probably motivated by the idea of being published for their work and the prestige associated with that. Others are probably motivated by the idea of having an impact and changing the lives of the people in Lesotho for the better. The scientific challenge of developing the chemical additives to make the water safe to drink probably motivates some researchers as well. It is likely a different combination of reasons motivating each researcher.
- The people living in Lesotho are stakeholders as the chemical additives would decrease the prevalence of water-borne illnesses and make their lives much easier, and they are therefore motivated by the prospect of the local water being safe to drink. The individuals who would help with the research itself have more stake because they would be spending time with the researchers and therefore have invested more, and may be motivated by their willingness to work with a foreigner, but at the present will not be motivated financially as the facts state they will not be compensated.
- The government of Lesotho is also a stakeholder motivated by the goal of the research. If the water in Lesotho was safe to drink fewer individuals would contract water-borne illnesses, which is a benefit for the government. As the government exports a lot of safe water to South Africa, they are motivated to find a solution for the residents of Lesotho. They are also motivated by votes so they can remain in their position, which would also drive them to support this research but also make sure the people of Lesotho are not exploited.
- The institution that would publish any findings of this research is motivated by prestige and any potential clout in the scientific community.
- The institution that would implement the solution is motivated by any potential profit if it is a private institution, and possibly by the idea of helping a lot of people or scientific curiosity.
- Who or what is funding the research is motivated by their investment itself and is probably looking for a certain ROI (financial or social). They may also be altruistic and motivated by the idea of improving lives. They are also motivated by the reputation of their organization, so they should want to make sure the research collects quality data in an ethical manner.
Step 4: Formulate alternative solutions
- One solution is to compensate the individuals in the village who are providing help for their time and assistance. This can be done by paying them directly or providing them with food or other items that are valuable to them. This is utilitarian because the individuals in Lesotho would find more value in the compensation than just 10 researchers. A benefit of this solution is that it is fair work for the individuals in the village, so they will be efficient and the samples will be collected quickly. Unfortunately, a con is that they do have to spend resources on this task, and there is no guarantee that they will gain insights from these samples. Another con of this solution is that the researchers are not familiar with local culture and will likely not compensate the individuals properly.
- One other solution is to partner with an organization such as an NGO to handle compensation for the workers. This alleviates the con of likely not compensating the researchers properly. The benefit to this is the same as before, as the individuals are being compensated they will work to efficiently collect the samples. Additionally, the con that this may end up wasting resources still exists if the NGO simply consults the researchers on how to compensate. If the expectation is for the NGO to compensate the workers, a con with this approach is that it is unfair to expect this from an NGO that may or may not have appropriate resources for doing so, even though they would also benefit should the research be successful.
- The last alternative solution would be for the researchers to not use assistance from the community and collect the water themselves. This is a virtue-based solution as they are not trying to waste the labor of the individuals in Lesotho. Not using their labor is definitely a pro of this solution. However there are 2 cons. One con of this solution is that it could be seen as intrusive to not involve the community in the research, considering it is being conducted in their community. A second con was told in the description. The researchers are very unfamiliar with the area and may not even find any viable water sources for sampling. Because of these cons, this is probably not the best solution in this situation.
Step 5: Draw from additional experiences
Based on my personal experience in Sierra Leone this summer, 2 weeks is a very short period of time to try and get a significant amount of viable data. We would not have gotten nearly as much data as we did if we were in country for ⅔ of the time that we were. We also used translators that were local, and found extreme value in them knowing the area. They suggested different villages for us to look into and helped us speak with the chiefs and make sure it was okay with them if we surveyed. This was simply not something we could do on our own. Having the assistance of World Hope International to put us in contact with these translators and help us along the way was extremely valuable as well.
Step 6: The best course of action
I would recommend solution 1 or 2. If in advance an arrangement could be made with an NGO, I would choose solution 2. Otherwise, I would suggest solution 1. In 2 weeks, it is important to be sure that the research is conducted efficiently, which would not occur with solution 3. However, solution 2 would be more favorable based on my experience in Sierra Leone and how much WHI helped by driving us to and from villages, providing us with a workspace, etc.
Step 7: Implications on venture
If the venture works with an NGO, they will have to work with them to find community members to assist with, and if not this would be an individual task. The data collection would be likely to be efficient as the solution specifies compensating the individuals in the village; however, it will therefore require resources.