Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible. Clearly state the ethical issue.

Facts:

• The research group is traveling throughout Lesotho to determine locations and methods for storing water
• Researching a specific pathogen that is only found in this region in Lesotho
• Several publications will be published
• Will not pay participants who show their drinking water

Issue:

• • Not reimbursing community members for their time
  • No game plan for improvement of life quality in Lesotho (how will this benefit people)
  • Since the researchers are only there for 10 days, they would be unable to determine the long-term effects of the pathogen
  • The water conditions may change each season
  • Will you bring more and more researchers into this community in the future? How does this impact their community in terms of environment, culture, expectations…
  • Not paying community members leaves a bad reputation for future research teams coming in
  • Is this water problem the root problem or is it caused by something else? Will they find out and treat the root problem?
  • How accessible would these chemicals be? If they are free how are we sustaining production of this project? Will they be manufactured locally = creating more employment for community members?

• • Do the citizens of Lesotho understand the health severity of the exposure to these pathogens?

• • Are recommendations being provided to the people of Lesotho to combat the pathogen (boiling, gravity filtration)? What do they do in the meantime?

We have concluded that this study is not ethical on the basis that there is not enough of a plan for the research and its intended outcomes and benefits for the community. It is not justifiable to intervene in the village’s life, without having a more set idea of the information the researchers hope to obtain and how it will end up benefiting the community. 

Step 2: Define the Stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome 

• The public 
• Any current water treatment facilities 
• The Government of Lesotho (More specifically water/health-related ministries)
• Academic institutions, bio specific (new strain, new data, sequencing, and biological interaction with other living things)
• Diseases advocacy groups 
• Government of South Africa 
• NSF & NIH

Step 3: Assess the motivations of the Stakeholders

• The public – may be given better access to clean drinking water
• Any current Water Treatment Facilities – If a solution is found to limit pathogens in water then these facilities will want to produce clean drinking water in Lesotho
• Gov of Lesotho: want solution for water problems, raising awareness for other problems of their country (poverty, other pollutants), getting re-elected (by improving quality of living)
• Academic Institutions: Will be interested in the new information uncovered about the pathogen
• Diseases advocacy groups: Interested in raising quality of life
• Government of South Africa: Watershed of Lesotho impacts regions of South Africa as well — they have been buying Lesotho water
• NSF & NIH – Founded this research and are interested in improving drinking water quality

Step 4: Formulate at least three alternative solutions – based on information available, using basic ethical core values as guide

1. Research the impact of storage conditions on pathogen plus ways to possibly filter and work to make recommendations for storing with the help of a hired local guide
   1. Ethical Principle and code
      1. Guide will be compensated
      2. Clear goal for how researchers will give back to the community
      3. Education involved
   2. Pros
      1. Better understand pathogen
      2. Local guide so will be able to connect with individuals
      3. Specific focus for research
      4. Combines research and education 
   3. Cons
      1. Guide will cost money
      2. Not guaranteed that solution will be found
      3. Need to make filter cost low enough that it will be accessible to everyone
2. Education on proper sanitation methods and hygienic processes
   1. Ethical Principle and code
      1. Must make sure that assistance is wanted
   2. Pros
      1. Community can learn how to help limit the growth of pathogens in the lake with safer sanitary and agricultural practices
      2. Locals will be involved and impacted by the research
   3. Cons
      1. Will not solve problem, only limit its severity
      2. Residents may not be able to implement safer practices if they do not have proper access to resources
3. Import filtered water from South Africa
   1. Ethical Principle and code
      1. This solution does not proportionally advantage everyone
      2. Only those who can afford imported water will be able to buy it
   2. Pros
      1. No research involved so it would save time and money on lab supplies
      2. Increases South Africa’s profits
   3. Cons
      1. Only solves issue for the rich
      2. Not sustainable solution because supplies of imported water is not guaranteed
      3. Extra cost to import water including transportation
      4. Water needs to be stored properly so that it is sanitary 

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

 

• Additional Assistance Available in the Following Sources
  • Principles of bioethics 
  • Engineering ethical codes
  • Previous water quality research that dealt with harmful pathogens
  • Companies that work with water treatment

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that which satisfies the highest core ethical values. Explain reasoning and justify. Discuss your stance vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in the class.

The best solution my group came up with is to research how storage methods affect the pathogens growth, and possible ways to filter the water while it is being stored. This will be accomplished with a paid local guide that will handle all interactions with community members. The end goal is to implement a storage system that simultaneously protects the water from pathogen growth while also filtering it. The storage method will be introduced to the town. We chose this solution because it best follows the ethical guidelines while also upholding the stakeholders interests of improving quality of life and learning more about the pathogens in water. This solution maximizes gain for everyone because it ends with a clear goal of how clean drinking water will be provided. This will benefit all of the people of Lesotho. It is hoped that the price for the drinking water will not be too expensive because the storage and filtration processes are combined. Therefore it will be available to more of the population. Additionally because of the research required it will provide helpful insights for other research institutions. One path discussed in class did not involve paying those who helped under the reasoning that they were not doing any manual work, just having a conversation. Our solution better handles this because we just pay one guide. This guide then will speak with community members. People will be more open and accepting to talk with someone who they already know and respect. 

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.

• Technology
  • Since this solution is heavily research based, it will require a lot more equipment and resources 
  • Multiple trials of the filtered storage box needed to be run
• Economic
  • More research will cost more money
  • Tour guide adds expenses
• Social
  • Education component of project will benefit the community 
• Environmental 
  • Depending on how large the storage units are, land may need to be cleared
  • Ultimately will lead to less contaminated water