09/06/19 – Case 1

Step 1 – Determine the Facts in the Situation:

    • There are pathogens in the water
    • People may not know about the pathogen
    • Only found in Lesotho, South Africa – will be there ONLY two weeks, 10 academic researchers
    • Requires assistance from community for testing
    • Publications are expected
    • A profile can help develop chemical additives to make the drinking water safe

Main Questions: Is it ethical to do this study?  Is this a human research study?  Should people be compensated?

Step 2 – Define the Stakeholders (Step 3, motivations, sub-bullets):

  1. Academic researchers
    • Publications, credibility, impact
  2. The academic institution (funders)
    • Integrity, liability, publicity, minimize cost and maximize value
  3. Community members
    • Livelihood, knowledge (kept in the dark), Compensation
  4. Chief/government
    • Image and safety (not take advantage of his community)
  5. Publicists
    • Quality research, knowledge (to move forward), marketability (to publish/ publicity)
  6. Chemists that can make the stuff
    • Quality research, market, profit

Step 4 – Alternative Solutions:

All determined solutions would start with informing the community members, displaying the importance of the research and how it can help in future, this way the people are more comfortable and potentially, more willing to help advance the project.

  1. Do the study and pay the community members for transport
    • Ethical Principle:  beneficence
    • Pros:  Keeps community happy, “simple”
    • Cons: more money
  2. Give them cleaner water, food, dinner
    • Ethical Principle:  beneficence
    • Pros:  Keeps them healthier short term vs doing nothing
    • Cons:  Expensive, not sustainable
  3. Don’t pay them, thank them
    • Ethical principle:  Virtue-based
    • Pros:  not added cost or work
    • Cons:  could make community mad, worsen relations, network difficulties, look bad on institution
  4. Recognize them in the publications (credit)
    • Ethical Principle:  beneficence
    • Pros:  morally fit, helps the village and those specific people, prioritized in future things (chemical additives), could provide copy to the people who helped
    • Cons:  long term, not guaranteed, people won’t care will never see it won’t understand that being beneficial, won’t want flock of people → wanna be under the radar, unwanted attention

Steps 5-7:

assistance, best course, implications

In deciding which solution would be the best course of action, it was important to draw off personal anecdotes each of us in our discussion group had to consider, as well as any previous studies and relevant information.  For instance, the approach to give those who help us (potentially the drivers) clean water would not be the best choice because while it is a kind gesture that would be appreciated, it is not sustainable, and therefore could create more problems for their personal way of live or economy, etc.  After considering all of our outlets, the best solution I would choose would be to inform the community, not pay, and offer to recognize them in publications.  If we went about doing this, I would start by meeting with the community chief of the villages that could help us, similar to what our Malnutrition team did when we went to villages to complete interviews.  In doing this, it gains the chief’s respect and begins a connection such that he/she may be more willing to help us conduct the study.  After doing this, we would ask if they could recruit a few of the best people informed on where the water sources are to show us around to the different locations.  For these people, I would then offer to publicize their help, and upon completion of the study I would mail them a copy of the publications with their names to see for themselves.  In this way, it would positively attract to the community memebers, and it would maintain a solid relationship with the researchers and the community should they need to return for further studies.

 

Leave a Reply