Samantha Powers

Ethical issue: The ethical issue in this case involves whether it is right to conduct research and seek significant help from the community to conduct the research if there is not a clear short-term or long-term benefit to the community. Another aspect of this case causes us to question whether it is ethical to use community members to aid in the study without compensating them for their help in some way.

Facts in the situation:

• Lesotho is a small developing country in South Africa
• You, a researcher, need significant assistance from the community in your study to test water sources for disease-causing pathogens for two weeks
  • Specifically that assistance will come in the form of some community members showing the team all the different locations where individuals get their water from, and places/methods for storing the water
• You are planning not to pay the locals for helping you find their water sources
• The goal is to understand the lifecycle and characteristics of a specific pathogen
  • The pathogen is found only in this region of Lesotho
• Several publications are expected from this research study
• Other researchers/scientists can use this foundational knowledge to provide a long-term benefit to the locals

Stockholders & Motivations:

Researchers:

• Understand the pathogen’s lifecycle and characteristics to create a profile of the pathogen to eventually contribute to the potential development of chemical additives for the water
• Help the Lesotho population by creating new knowledge that can lead to safe drinking water for the community
• Gain recognition for their work

The University:

• Recognition to uphold or heighten their reputation

Funders:

• For the research team to make a valuable discovery to make their funding of the study worth the cost
• Success of the research team to result in recognition for funding a meaningful and successful project

Local natives aiding in the research:

• Monetary gain
• Simply wanting to help people who take an interest in their community
• Seeking more recognition for themselves or their community
• Build connections with other community members and the researchers
• Potential elimination of pathogen in the future

Population of Lesotho:

• Eradication of the pathogen so that the water is safe to drink

Solutions:

1. Survey Community Health Workers (CHWs), separating each survey by the Peripheral Health Unit (PHU) that each CHW is based. In this solution, CHWs are nominated by their peers to serve in this capacity. Thus, it makes sense to survey CHWs, as they are already trusted representatives of their communities.
   1. Pros: The CHWs are already selected as trusted members of the community to participate in this type of work, which cuts out time and energy for the research team to find and appoint members of the community who are not already designated as reliable sources through a time-consuming process. These CHWs are also volunteers so we would save money without the need for monetary compensation.
   2. Cons: Though these members already act as representatives in the community, finding the right people to help may take a significant amount of time and effort. This would include getting help from partnerships for specifically which CHWs should aid in the study and making sure they are sanctioned by the locals, as these factors are very important in achieving reliable results.
2. Survey random samples of individual community members on where they get their water instead of looking for specific people to do it (which may also not cover all the bases whereas surveying many people may) and thus, providing a smaller incentive for those who do take the survey rather than a larger monetary incentive for a few people to aid us. This smaller incentive could be a lunch or a snack as a token of gratitude if the goal really is to not pay anyone monetarily.
   1. Pros: This may result in more reliable results as the pool of samples would be larger, therefore giving a more accurate representation of water source information/use in the different communities. This solution also addresses the issue of incentivizing the community members by providing a small incentive as a token of gratitude, while keeping compensation costs relatively low.
   2. Cons: Surveying random samples in this way may be difficult depending on the circumstances in Lesotho. It would need to include a detailed plan in how these individuals would be randomly chosen, how we will reach them, how we will retrieve the information, and eventually analyze the results to properly move forward in the study.
3. Request a meeting with the local government to formulate a relationship of trust and relay the research to the community with the intention of educating and appointing the appropriate community members to aid in the study.
   1. Pros: This solution addresses a part of the ethical issue involving conducting research in a community in which there is no guarantee of benefit to the community by educating some community members in the research and goal of the project, making them feel involved and connected. This solution also creates an effective environment for appointing community members to aid in the study through discussion and the sharing of knowledge to determine who would be most fit.
   2. Cons: This solution has few cons aside from the fact that it depends on the cooperation and willingness of the local government in helping us determine the most appropriate community members to help in the study.

 

Best Course of Action: The best course of action is solution #3, requesting a meeting with the local government to formulate a relationship of trust and relay the research to the community with the intention of educating and appointing the appropriate community members to aid in the study. This solution satisfies the highest core ethical values by addressing the main ethical issue in this case by using education as incentive. By gathering to discuss the planned research and goals of the project, the community can understand why the researchers are there and how they plan to help, making the community feel included in the process. This can eliminate monetary compensation since the incentive is in the form of education, or the researchers can decide to have an added token of reward to show their appreciation for the cooperation of the community. While solution #2 would rely on members of the community not necessarily qualified to answer the survey questions for information, solution #3 would create the most reliable results of the study since the local government would help appoint the most well-versed members to aid us. Due to the reliability of the members chosen from this method, the whole process of creating a complex plan in determining the appropriate members for the study is eliminated, saving time and money. Solution #3 even exceeds solution #1 in this respect because even solution #1 requires time spent through communication with partners to determine the appropriate CHWs before proceeding.

 

Implications of the solution: As previously stated, this solution would achieve the most reliable results. Achieving reliable results is the most important factor in a study because without reliability, the results are useless. With high reliability, this solution will provide a basis for the study to conduct meaningful research that will contribute to the potential development of chemical additives to create safe drinking water. This may not only improve health for the community, but increase economic inflow as a result of increased tourism in the area. They may also be able to use water as a resource to produce goods, stimulating economic activity in the country. Environmentally, one must consider the impact of the chemical additives on the life in the water source, though overall, the solution will have a great social impact by elevating the livelihoods of the people of Lesotho.