The goal is to test the water form the source for known disease-causing pathogens
These pathogens can only be found in this one region of Lesotho
There are no immediate term benefits the community for the research besides the economic benefit of stimulation from the foreigners.
The only contribution completely necessary from the village is the researchers using the water source. Would it be nice for on the ground help, yes, but not necessary?
The 11 researchers will be staying for 14 days to complete their research.
This research may lead to additional benefits to the world, or may not: unclear.
They plan to publish the research they conducted while in-country as well as everything they learned in relation to the research from the samples.
They are not required to pay any locals for helping them find samples or for using resources to help them as well.
Stakeholders (Letters) and Motivations (Roman Numerals)
You and research team- 11 people on the ground doing research.
Stands to gain from an additional citation on their record
Professional clout in possible groundbreaking research
Fieldwork in a new place/New experience
New grant opportunities, based on how well research goes.
The community members of the village
May benefit from solutions in the future, if the research creates something new.
Possible more researchers coming if they discover something groundbreaking.
Economic Stimulator of having foreigners staying there.
Local workers (If deciding to pay them)
Compensation for work
Possible better jobs or stigma for working with the foreigners
Additional skills and a better resume
Anyone who reads the report
Make a profit from the solution
Additional knowledge from the reading report.
Ability to prevent themselves from pathogens.
The University
Gains clout from research in a foreign country as well as better recognition.
Publication and citations on their records
Possible grants from research which can lead to better facilities and faculty.
Government of Lesotho
Can gain clean water from possible research afterward
It can better help communities understand what is going on with their water.
Money flowing into the communities from foreigners
Recognition of research and being better well known due to the research.
Funding institution (If different than University)
They have their money at stake for them
They have their name on this research
They will be able to say they have a global impact
This research might help their bottom line in the end.
South Africa
May be affected by these pathogens based on geological problems or the way water flows in the region spreading these pathogens.
The ethical questions at hand are, in this case:
Should people be compensated for their time and resources in helping them find water samples?
Pay them for time and resources:
By paying them you may get better results and better samples, but they also may try and hold you for more money. You also have to deal with what is a fair rate, and who you should pick to help you.
One of the ways to solve is to find the average wage for the area and then pay the chief to help you get the best men/woman for the job.
Pay them for resources only:
By paying them only for the resources they need to get you to your samples you may get better results and better samples, but the people no longer have an incentive to find you good samples. You won’t have to deal with what is a fair rate, you just have to reimburse for the cost of items. It might be more difficult because locals will or may not be motivated to help you find what you need.
This lowers the cost on your end while still having them not have to pay for anything out of their pocket. Still have to sort out, who you want helping you.
Don’t pay them:
By not paying the locals, you will not have a lot of added cost and you won’t have to sort out whos getting paid and how much. You also won’t have to reimburse for cost incurred to them.
This strategy is the lowest cost but I think the most difficult because you have to be able to convince people to help you and find you exactly what you need while not really incentivizing them to do so.
Should the village be compensated for the scientists taking water samples?
Pay them:
You are taking their resource without anything physical in exchange.
It is a public resource so by taking it you are acting almost the same as the locals.
Don’t pay them (Distribute information):
You are taking their research without giving anything in return so the least you could do would give them a layman term of what you have gathered because more will be unable to access the research once it is published.
Don’t pay them (At all):
You are just using a naturally occurring and public resource, therefore, you owe nothing to them from taking it. Is there a possible stigma of the locals not knowing what the foreigners are doing and thus them believing that they are harming them, yes. But by reaching out to the chef we are putting that on him.
Is it ethical to conduct this study from a human standpoint? Are there any immediate impacts to humans from this study?
Yes:
As long as the people you get to help you are not affected by the pathogen specifically based on your work, then it is ethical.
No:
If you know that them coming in contact with this disease will harm them then the study is unethical from that point.
Additional points.
Ebola team: Did not pay anyone except for reimbursements, we also made sure anyone involved knew exactly what the goal of the study was. Also, most people will be unable to access the research.
Clinical trials do research/trials and then finish without providing real solutions, similar to the course of action this project could take. Their research is also not accessible to most people anyway.
If I were to conduct this study I would pay the locals and well are reimbursed for the cost of incurred costs. The cost for the locals for the team would likely be minimal. You have the best chance of gathering the best data, and you are not making people pay for out of the pocket expenses. You also make sure then that these people don’t feel like they are forced to help you, and feel good for what they are doing. This strategy will result in the best data, as well as all stakeholders, being the best off. When it comes to compensating locals for the actual water, I don’t think they need to be paid for it because it is a public resource, therefore, the team taking water versus a regular person is the same. To make this a little more formal I would reach out to the ministry of water and got their approval which might also help to have a name on the project as well. This will make it feel like we are working for the government and therefore not taking a resource from them but more using it. Finally, when it comes to the overall question of is this study ethical I think the answer is yes no matter if you are paying them or not as well as if you are paying them for the water samples. The water sources is public property and therefore up for taking and the people are not being forced to help you so paying them will help but is not necessary. I think the only thing that jumps out would be if the researchers knew that by having locals help them put the locals at an increased risk of being affected by these pathogens, then I feel like the study is unethical unless they declare that to them.
Implications of our best course of action
Economically
We are increasing the employment rate and put cash into the economy
We are also adding skills to the area
Stigma
We might be adding stigma by having foreigners work there.
Research
New research into this pathogen as well as the research that comes from it will fund the price of paying people on the ground.
