20 FAQ’s:

1. Where the app will be available (platform)
   1. Right now we have an elementary version of the app for android phones. Android is used more commonly among this age group in Kazakhstan, based on questioning our partners.
2. Where do you get stats for your environmental goals?
   1. We have researched that the recycling rate is 11% in Kazakhstan right now, and projecting an increase to 40% by 2024 is reasonable because the infrastructure is already there, citizens just have to be taught how to be more sustainable; which our venture/app does.
3. Roles of small businesses?
   1. Small businesses are a core part of our reward system. In our 4 categories, (in game customization, in game power ups, classroom rewards, and gift cards) small businesses would contribute gift cards for users to earn by actively using the app. It makes a win-win situation for both parties because small businesses can advertise our app to people in Almaty, and we can advertise their businesses in our app.
4. Why did you choose this age group?
   1. Our app is for three age groups; 6-9, 10-12, and 13-16. We chose these ages because that is when children are the most impressionable and formulate lifelong good or bad habits. It is also the age range to most likely find an app/game engaging to play.
5. Are there current gamification apps that have been successful?
   1. Grendel Games is a company in the Netherlands that has created many successful gamified apps. One of them is called Water Battle. It takes the users (primary school children) through a story of a character in the water network in a city in the Netherlands, and the user learns to use water and energy wisely. This is a very similar concept to ours, and they have found successful, measurable outcomes.
   2. An IEEE publication: “Using Gamification to Incentivize Sustainable Urban Mobility” discussed a case study on a green game called Viagga Rovereto which enhanced Rovereto, Italy’s sustainability in mobility.
   3. IEEE : “A mobile gamification learning system for improving learning the learning motivation and achievements”
   4. IEEE : “HomeSchool: an Interactive Educational tool for child education”
6. How are kids going to influence their families on their habits?
   1. Children involve their families into their school lives, for example mothers tend to help children with homework, so the family will definitely be involved with a new and innovative idea.
7. Verification and validation of concept
   1. We have been arranging for the app to be distributed among our partners, but we are still waiting for a final MVP to test it. But we have already heard from a few school teachers (including Xeniya Volkova) that our concept could work.
   2. We have surveys created to send out to students and teachers in Kazakh schools as soon as we hear back from our contacts.
8. How will the reward system work?
   1. Each sustainable act will earn the user a certain number of points. To get to the next level they need a required amount. In our 4 categories of rewards, (in game customization, in game power ups, classroom rewards, and gift cards), users will be able to choose where they want to spend their points. Outside rewards such as classroom rewards or gift cards will require more points, therefore incentivizing users to complete more sustainable actions. 
9. Inner workings of the app?
   1. There will be a storyline to engage the user, and tasks and quizzes for them to complete to progress forward in the app’s levels.
   2. Will be answered more effectively with a 20 second video. We can send the link to you afterwards if you would like further information.
10. How is your app an example of a smart city innovation?
    1. Smart City innovations can range in scope. Ultimately it is some sort of technology that improves citizen’s quality of life. We have written a paper for IEEE’s GHTC conference that was accepted titled “A Taxonomy of Smart City Innovations.” We can send you the link afterwards if you would like to read it.
11. How can you quantify the impact of the venture and is this impact even a significant role in the potential increase in the recycling rate in Almaty?
    1. We quantify impact using the number of active users compared to the number of schools and students in Almaty. For example our goal is to implement our solution at 4/8 international schools in Almaty. We also plan to quantify by calculating the recycling rate, and also by our quizzes in the app to determine if the students gain knowledge as they play.
12. What market share might this app have in Almaty?
    1. So there are not a lot of gamified recycling apps in Kazakhstan currently, so we aim for a decent market share of 20%?
13. How have you tested the app among students, teachers, etc.?
    1. Unfortunately due to many covid restrictions, we haven’t been able to test the app among students or teachers, but as soon as it is possible/safe, that is our next step.
14. What role do your partners play in the venture?
    1. Our partners in Kazakhstan play a big role in validating our app. Throughout our creation and development process, we shared our progress with our partners to get feedback, criticism, and any advice or recommendations that we could use to improve our process/designs.
15. What social / cultural barriers are expected?
    1. Their methods of teaching, project management, and achieving goals are different. We use a more active and persistent approach, which sometimes clashes with their work ethic. 
    2. Kazakhstan is being affected by covid as well, so communication is more difficult now. 
    3. It’s a new form of teaching, so it will be met with skepticism.
    4. Environmental literacy and sustainability is a few field of study being implemented into school as far as we know from a few of our partners
16. How are you planning on funding the development of the app?
    1. We are currently working on a proposal for IEEE SIGHT funding.
17. What is the significance of using the Saiga antelope?
    1. The saiga is an endangered animal native to the Kazakh steppe, so we wanted to integrate the idea of increased sustainability and recycling with improving the environment for endangered saigas.
18. How are you incorporating Almaty or Kazakhstan into the design of the app?
    1. All of the sustainability acts will be mindful of the user’s location and what is available and accessible to them in Almaty.
19. What about students who don’t have access to a mobile device? Will there be a web-version available?
    1. Once we have our app worked out, we can then work on a web-version. However, phones have become progressively less expensive, so most households in Kazakhstan have at least one mobile device.
20. Why do you think your approach of using gamification and education will be successful?
    1. Literature: In reading many publications about gamification successes, if it includes some form of “persuasion” it is able to change habits. The paper “Gamification of Persuasive Systems for Sustainability” emphasizes this. Also more IEEE papers back this up with successes in children with dyslexia, and ADHD learning to manage better.
    2. Strategy: We will have a storyline to engage users, and rewards to incentivize and persuade effectively.

Contributors: Alyssa Blasko, Weilin Pan, Skyler Martinez, Tommy Persaud

Part 1:

The ethical problem: 

• Prolonged breastfeeding with a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS
• Content of gruel can link to pesticide use of cash crops, further risking health of children 
• The mothers are skeptical because they have fed the children with gruel before, they are not familiar with the new recipe
• Current gruel being used is not nutritious enough, according to scientific research

Step 1: Facts of the Situation

• A research team received a grant to establish a women’s cooperative in this region.
• In certain area of East Africa, growth of ~35% of children is stunted due to poor nutrition
• HIV/AIDS is very prevalent in this region
• The gruel used to wean children off breastfeeding is not nutritionally beneficial to infant (banana and maize)
• Cash crops are grown in the three regions that expressed interest in participating
• Pesticides are currently used in cash crops and can be very harmful for infants and children
• 500 women are interested in joining the cooperative 
• Current crops grown in the area: maize, sorghum, cassava, several varieties of legumes (dried beans), French beans, coffee, pineapple, bananas, pumpkins, tomatoes, carrots, kale, white (Irish) potatoes, and sweet potatoes.

Step 2 + 3:  Stakeholders and their motivations

• African children
  • Personal:
    • Have safer food
    • Lowers risk of exposure to HIV/AIDS, improves growth and resilience 
• African mothers
  • Personal:
    • Give their child nutritious food 
    • Ensure the food their child is eating is safe for consumption
    • Excitement to learn and socialize – but their vulnerability may result in wanting you to hear what you want to hear – they do not want to come off as ignorant – they may reinforce your ideas because they think you’re smart and want to agree. On the other hand, some may be weary to trust an outsider so make sure you talk to the right people 
• Farmers
  • Personal: 
    • Make money
  • Professional: 
    • Produce safer foods 
    • Grow business as their crops become essential in porridge (sell more crops)
    • Find an alternative 
• The research team
  • Personal: 
    • Make money, reduce the HIV/AIDS rate, further their career
    • Earn more money to continue doing research and get continuous funding
  • Professional: 
    • Recognition in the research community if collective is successful
    • Building up their own credibility in their research community 
• Local hospital
  • Professional: 
    • Bettering of health of patients and locals
    • Provide safe sex instruments to reduce transmission of HIV/AIDS
    • Make sure hospital isn’t always at capacity – prevent future cases
    • Can devote their resources to something else 
• Doctors & Nurses
  • Personal:
    • Help ensure mother/infants are healthy 
  • Professional:
    • Help reduce transmission of HIV/AIDS by educating locals 
• University/lab/government (Funding agency)
  • Professional: 
    • Treat spread of disease
    • Reputation of gaining academic knowledge
    • Funding agency will have their name attached to the possible solution
    • More advertising – want to be a world leader in the field – want to build up their brand
    • More partners

• African government – Secondary stakeholders
  • Professional:
    • Decrease the countries’ HIV rate
    • Decrease the infant mortality
    • Create a safer living environment for the citizens
    • Make profit

Step 4: Three Alternate Solutions (Solution, Ethical Principle, Pros / Cons for each)

 

• Potential Solution 1: Educate people on the recipe

 

• • • How does it solve the problem? 
      • Pros: There will be less pesticide
      • Cons: hard to find alternative crops with minimal to no use of pesticides in the local area
    • How does it save face of those involved? 
      • Pros: 
        • Can market itself as a more ethical and safe option for families
      • Cons: 
        • Concerns with accessibility and efficiency 
    • Implications on relationships 
      • Short-term: 
        • Strain on relationships with local farmers
      • Long-term: 
        • More solidified trust and assurance among mothers and families as a safer option
    • Implications on the venture 
      • Short-term: 
      • Long-term: 

 

• Potential Solution 2: Pesticide removal treatment 

 

• • • How does it solve the problem? 
      • Pros:
        • Cleans the foods
        • Increases trust with the community which will lead to more women in the cooperative using the porridge 
        • Improves growth and nutrition of the children 
      • Cons: 
        • May not take all the pesticides off
        • May be costly 
        • May not increase trust with the community 
    • How does it save face of those involved? 
      • Many families do not want to use the food with the pesticide and that the porridge is unknown. This option is a better nutritional option compared to the current situation and allows them to keep with cleaner foods 
    • Implications on relationships 
      • Short-term:  
        • May increase trust with trying the new porridge 
      • Long-term: 
        • Could increase reputation in the community as the collective aims to use cleaner ingredients
    • Implications on the venture 
      • Short-term: 
        • Could be a financial burden to purchase all materials as a start up cost
      • Long-term: 
        • Could improve results which may lead to more grant funding 

 

• Potential Solution 3: Using safer pesticides

 

• • How does it solve the problem? 
    • Cash crops can still be grown at the same rate. Adverse health implications might be minimal. 
    • Pros: 
      • Cash crops can still be used
      • Infants can have nutritious food 
      • Mothers have lower risk of HIV/AIDS transmission
    • Cons: 
      • Still using pesticides 
      • Economic barriers with affording better pesticides 
      • May still keep mothers from wanting to use the porridge 
      • Farmers might not want to adopt the use of new pesticide  
      • Farmers cannot afford new pesticides
      • Might not be any safer pesticides for infant consumption
  • How does it save face of those involved? 
    • Keeps the pesticides in the project which eliminates insect issues and continues the growth of crops at a cheaper price while lowering the risk of pesticide exposure. 
  • Implications on relationships 
    • Short-term:
      • • Trust issues with using new porridge
        • Farmers might be offended because they are producing harmful goods 
      • Long-term: 
        • Hopefully an increased use of the porridge
        • Adoption of safer pesticides 
  • Implications on the venture 
    • Short-term: 
      • Pushing forward in a quick manner to keep the venture going
      • Possible issues with grant funding if funders want a pesticide free crop yield 
    • Long-term: 
      • Larger crop yield by using the safer pesticides which adds a higher reputation to the grant and results of the venture 

Step 5: Additional Assistance

• Convincing someone to change their ways can be very difficult, especially when they have been doing something for a long time. This case is reflective of my everyday life with my parents who have habits of using household remedies as solutions for injuries or for medical purposes. They tend to use household remedies instead of actual medication. So when I tried convincing them to use the medicine instead of their remedies it was very difficult to. I ended up showing them some videos from a few pharmacists/doctors  talking about how effective modern day medication is and eventually they came around. I plan to reflect on using such tactics when it comes to tackling this dilemma. 

Step 6: Best Course of Action

• The best course of action would be to invest into finding a pesticide removal treatment. This would be the easiest to implement without disrupting the current cash crops farmers are growing. Since people are already consuming the cash crops, finding a pesticide treatment would be optimal because the farmers can continue growing as needed. The reason why I said this would be the best solution as opposed to solution 3 is because it might be very much possible that there aren’t any safer pesticides so investing in a removal treatment would ensure safe consumption of the cash crops.

Step 7: Implications of Solution

• Economics
  • Farmers can continue growing cash crops 
  • Might cost more to use removal treatment
  • Farmers might have to produce a smaller yield because they can only afford some amount of the removal treatment
• Social
  • More people can have access to safer foods 
  • Mothers can feel assured their kids are getting the proper nutrients
• Environmental
  • Pesticides can still be used as a method of ensuring crops grow safely 
  • Pesticide removal can be harmful to environment 
  • Continues use of pesticides can be environmentally harmful

Part 2:

The ethical problem: 

• Men in families where the women earn money from the cooperatives are taking all of the money for selfish reasons (alcohol and frivolous things)
• Women are not having enough money to spend on their family 
• The livelihoods of these rural households are not improving 

Step 1: Facts of the Situation

• The business with local women is thriving
• The women work for about nine hours every day and earn KES 300 (about $3)
• They have the opportunity to sell the produce grown on their small farms to the cooperative
• The women enjoy working with each other and are happy with the cooperative; they have a strong sense of community and identity
• Women cannot use the money earned for their families (money goes to the men)

Step 2,3: Stakeholders and their motivations 

• Stakeholders remind the same as part 1, except with the additional of the men in the families
• Men
  • Personal
    • Take and use money for themselves
  • Professional:
    • Potentially gambling of the money to earn more to support their families 

Step 4,5,6: The Optimal Solution

• Optimal Solution: Establish an equity bank at the cooperative that the workers can only take out a third at a time, or send the money at the store created at the cooperative 
  • How does it solve the problem?
    • Women won’t be bringing home physical capital that the men can take.
    • Women can still have some capital to support their families.
    • Pros:
      • Women still have capital for their families
      • Men won’t be taking all of the income the women make immediately
    • Cons:
      • Since only a third can be taken out at a time, the men might still take this for themselves
  • How does it save face of those involved?
    • The cooperative can still function without being seen as a party who allowed the women to work hard for seemingly nothing
    • The women can still give the men some money but not all of the money they earned
  • Implications on relationships
    • Short-Term
      • The men might be against this equity bank
      • The women will like it because they can support their family 
    • Long-Term
      • The men will come around to the equity bank
      • The women will continue to support their families
  • Implications on the venture
    • Short-Term
      • Cooperative will be disliked by the men initially
      • Cooperative might lose some trust in the community 
    • Long-Term
      • The cooperative’s presence will stabilize and continue to be an integral part of the community

Step 7: Step by Step implementation of optimal solutions 

• Establish cooperative 
• Establish equity bank
• Allow women to work
• Allow workers to take out a third at a time
• Allow workers to send the money at the store created at the cooperative

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible

• Kids (3-16) live at the center
• Jack lives at the center (for 5 months)
• Staff lives at the center
• One kid without toys directly blamed Jack. Kids with toys love Jack.
• Staff members are not concerned about the children’s feelings towards materialistic objects
• The way the ceremony was staged convinced the kids that Jack gave them the toys
• Staff were convinced Jack was making a big deal out of the situation and might become a “children’s right activist” and create unnecessary problems 
• Potentially bigger underlying reason for why the staff members didn’t give gifts out to the 4 kids
• Staff felt blamed by Jack’s concern
• Jack wants to make a good impression on the kids at the center to establish good relationships

Step 2 and 3: Define the problem and the stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome and Determine and distinguish between the personal and professional motivations of the stakeholders. 

Dilemma: Jack wants to do the right thing without putting blame on anyone or apologizing too much. Also, this action will create expectations for future actions. Jack doesn’t want to jeopardize current relationships.

Stakeholders:

• Children without toys: 
  • Personal interest: 
    • want toys
    •  want the ceremony too (a matter of respect)
  • Professional: 
    • can use this in the future to take advantage of Jack
• Children with toys:
  • Personal
    • New toys! They like jack because he gave them the toys
    • Feeling special and valued
    • Might tease kids who did not get gifts
• Staff members: 
  • Professionally: 
    • They don’t want Jack to question how good they are at their job (rude)
    • Jack’s action will change the work dynamic between them and the kids
    • Cannot control how many gifts are sent 
    • Smooth operations
  • Personal: 
    • Feel defensive of Jack’s concerns (he just got here, how should he know better)
    • Didn’t want to set the precedent of gifts being a reward
• Jack:
  • Personal: 
    • Wants to be liked and welcomed, make everyone happy
    • Feels personally blamed by the kids and at the same time the kids gave him all the credit for the gifts
  • Professional:
    • Good relationship with all the kids will be better in the long run
    • Wants to have a good rep because he is living there for five months
• Donor Org (secondary): 
  • Professional: 
    • Good press, maybe a tax write off
  • Personal: 
    • Feeling of gratitude and giving back to another community

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on information available, to have a win-win situation for your relationship and your venture. Approaches [1/2/3: repeat for every action] • Potential Solution • How does it solve the problem? o Pros o Cons • How does it save face of those involved? • Implications on relationships o Short-term o Long-term • Implications on the venture o Short-term o Long-term 

 

• If economically feasible, buy the children gifts and make a special occasion of it

 

1. 1. 1. How does it solve the problem?
         1. It allows the kids that were forgotten to feel included and that they are just as special as all the other kids
      2. Pros: 
         1. The children will be happy.
         2. Kids will gain a sense of inclusion and importance 
         3. All of the children will have received gifts of equal value.
      3. Cons: 
         1. The staff might not agree with the decision. This might create some division between Jack and the staff.
         2. Creates a financial burden that Jack hadn’t planned for.
         3. May create a situation where children start approaching Jack asking him to buy them other things.
      4. How does it save face of those involved?
         1. Jack: Feels less bad after a look of shame from a kid with a hat.
         2. Staff members: makes them look like they didn’t forget anyone
         3. Children without toys: it makes them not look left out and appear included versus being excluded with just a black hat
      5. Implications on relationships
         1. Short-term
            1. Makes the kids feel included and the 4 kids trust Jack again
         2. Long-term
            1. The kids might take advantage of Jack because he was nice to them and got them special gifts
            2. It might hurt his relationship with other children because they think he is favoring the 4 kids that didn’t get gifts
            3. The staff might start to dislike Jack because he could be causing more problems and going against what they said. They could blame him for any issues related to this in the future. Also, they could see it as using money to win the children over.
      6. Implications on the venture (venture is the working relationship between youth center and americans)
         1. Short-term
            1. Will improve immediate relationships with kids 
            2. sour relationship with coworkers
            3. Will fix this dilemma and keep the relationship between center and Jack (the american)
         2. Long-term
            1. Youth center members might see American workers as a charity 
            2. Might hurt other American’s opportunities to work at that center

 

• Add more value to the hats (make the hat a special role to those select children)

 

1. 1. 1. How does it solve the problem?
         1. It gives the kids a sense of importance and value, which they didn’t get with not getting as special of a gift
         2. Makes them feel more included in the group, like they’re as important as all the other kids
      2. Pros: 
         1. The kids would feel honored despite not partaking in the gift ceremony
         2. The kids would not blame Jack for being left out
         3. The workers won’t feel that Jack is upstaging their own job performance
      3. Cons: 
         1. Unsure of how this would affect the social dynamic of kids (might give them a power trip over the kids with toys)
         2. Unsure if the kids will be accepting of this “added value” and could still be upset
         3. Workers might see this as Jack interfering with the current way of things and think he is meddling too much
      4. How does it save face of those involved?
         1. Jack: It gives Jack a way to still be on good terms with the kids and without stepping on the staff members toes
         2. Staff members: It makes them look like they didn’t forget any of the kids and that they still value everyone in the center equally
         3. Kids without toys: It makes them feel special even though they didn’t get the same gifts as everyone else and can feel included with the other kids that got gits, not embarrassed
         4. Kids with toys: They might feel threatened by the new role children were given
      5. Implications on relationships
         1. Short-term
            1. Staff can trust that Jack has the best intent for the children
            2. Children might think Jack plays favorites (can create distrust with Jack)
         2. Long-term
            1. Jack and the staff would continue to be strong and stable 
            2. Jack can develop a strong relationship with all the children
      6. Implications on the venture
         1. Short-term
            1. Venture partnership will grow tighter as staff realizes the american worker is quick to improvise and satisfy the needs of the children without upstaging current workers 
         2. Long-term
            1. Venture continues stable partnership and keep open ties with American involvement at the youth center 

 

• Do nothing to ensure the relationship between Jack and the staff remains stable and healthy 

 

1. 1. How does it solve the problem?
      1. The children all got a gift technically…
      2. It allows Jack to stay on good terms with the staff members and shifts his level of importance for relationships to the staff over the kids
   2. Pros: 
      1. The relationship will continue to be strong and stable (assuming it was already stable)
      2. Children are pretty resilient and will likely bounce back from not receiving the gift. Jack should be able to build his relationship with the 4 kids back up pretty quickly.
      3. Staff members will see that Jack is respecting their advice and not a “children’s rights activist” 
   3. Cons: 
      1. Relationship between Jack and the children will suffer. Kids could be mean.
      2. The kids could have an influence on the staff members and make them have a negative outlook on Jack because he can’t get along with the kids
      3. Staff members might see Jack as complaining and not an action taker
   4. How does it save face of those involved? 
      1. Staff: Don’t feel like Jack is taking over and going over their heads to fix a problem. 
      2. Jack: Absorbs the blame but preserves relationship with staff
      3. Kids with no toys: They are still bitter (hopefully resilient)
      4. Kids with toys: Might feel more important than kids with no toys

1. 1. Implications on relationships
      1. Short-term
         1. Children will have a tainted view on Jack 
         2. Staff will see Jack as an obedient worker 
      2. Long-term
         1. Neutrality between children will remain the same (staff or jack isn’t playing favorites)
   2. Implications on the venture
      1. Short-term
         1. Relations between children and american worker might struggle 
      2. Long-term
         1. Establish could relationships between the staff members and American workers so there will continue to be opportunities for new volunteers to come visit

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

• Around second grade I remember the class getting a pizza party for having perfect attendance for the month. One issue was that there wasn’t enough pizza for everyone, so some kids wouldn’t get any. To solve this my teacher decided to order another pizza using her own money. This situation is similar to that of Jack’s. I would say this was probably the best course of action because she allows the kids in her class to be happy and she doesn’t make the administration who probably ordered the pizza, out to be neglectful.

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that solves the problem, saves face and has the best short term and long-term implications for your relationship and venture. Explain reasoning and discuss your solution vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in class. 

• The best course of action is making the hats special and giving more value to them
• Solves the problem by making everyone happy
  • All kids have some gift they are happy with
  • Staff doesn’t have to worry about Jack being a “child activist”
  • Jack doesn’t ruin the relationship with the staff
  • The venture continues the established relationship and american involvement in the youth center 
• Saves face by not making the youth center out to be the bad guys by not caring about the children with no gifts
• This solution works best because it doesn’t involve buying the gifts or making the youth center staff seem uncaring. 
  • Everyone is seemingly happy with this solutions
• This solution was brought up in class and it seems like everyone thought this was the best course of action as well.
• The negative implications of this could be the children with the hats will be disliked because of their new social status of having the hat.
  • This can create some resentment between the children
  • The staff can look to Jack as an intruder trying to make them look bad 

Step 7: List the sequence of actions you will take to implement your solution. Derived from an abridged version (6-step) of the 9-Step Process from “Applied Ethics Case of the Month Club”; adapted from methodology developed by Andy Lau @ Penn State. 

• First Jack would put a black hat 
• He would give the kids without gift a black hat 
• Announce that these kids are recognized for good behavior or academic excellence, or something that is rewarding to the context of the youth center
• After this announcement Jack would approach the kids without the gifts and make sure they are feeling more included and better
• Jack makes the black hat icon as a status of good merit 

 

Prompt:

Lesotho is a small developing country contained within South Africa. You and your team of academic researchers (10 in all) are spending the next two weeks travelling to different communities throughout Lesotho to test water sources for disease-causing pathogens. The testing you need to do is simple but requires significant assistance from the community – showing your team all the different locations where individuals get their water from, and places/methods for storing the water. You do not see the need to pay the community members, considering if someone asked you about your water source, you would not mind driving them up to the lake! The ultimate goal of the project is to understand the lifecycle and characteristics of a specific pathogen, which is found only in this region of Lesotho. Several publications are expected from this research study. A comprehensive profile of this pathogen can help in many ways including development of chemical additives to make the water safe to drink. Is it ethical to conduct this research study? What will you do next? 

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

• The research team (10 people, including you) is going to Lesotho for two weeks to conduct research on the pathogen in their water source
• The goal of the research is to investigate the lifecycle and chemical/biological features of disease-causing pathogen
• There are no stated benefits to the locals in their research proposal
• The results from this research could be used to develop chemical additives to make the water safe to drink.
• The researchers will release publications on their findings of the pathogen
• The researchers will need the help of the local people to locate where the people obtain and store their water.
• Assume we have all necessary approvals needed for research
• Ethical issue: As of right now, the locals are not benefitting from the research in any way, and the academic researchers have no intentions to pay the community members.

Step 2 & 3: Define the Stakeholders and assess their motivations 

• Academic researchers:
  • Test the water in Lesotho for disease-causing pathogens
  • Understand the lifecycle and characteristics of the pathogen
  • Write several publications from the research study → further your professional career
  • Possibly develop chemical additives to make the water safe to drink
  • Patent discover to possibly profit from findings 
  • Driven by social impact or fame in helping the local community
• Locals 
  • Provide location of water sources 
  • By providing access to the water sources, they contribute to the development of chemical additives in hopes of getting access to them for safe consumption of water

• Your research university/institution:
  • The findings could add to their reputation, making them highly regarded
  • Strengthen new/existing partnership with other funding agencies
  • Open rooms for future collaborations within the area/country (e.g., new ventures)
  • Create opportunities for students to gain experience on social impact projects (and make impact) 
• Sponsors of the research:
  • Want to gain the benefit of discovering a new pathogen
  • Gain the opportunity to develop chemical additives against any harmful chemicals that are found in the water
  • Can potentially earn monetary benefit from the chemical additives that will be developed
  • Gain a better reputation and have their name attached in the breakthrough of helping treat water issues in another country
  • Publicity that will aid in gaining funding for other projects or investigations
• Local government: 
  • Make sure the research team does not cause any harm (mentally or physically) to its own citizens (for example, poison the water sources, etc)
  • Validates whether or not the water source in the area is safe to drink for the community
  • Ensure that the citizens have accessibility to the research
  • Ensure the area have some sort of benefit to the chemical additives that is developed if pathogens are found in the water
  • Building/expanding relationships with other funding agencies/countries 

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions 

1. Potential Solution: Get a map to find the water source (Use sources like Google Earth which 3-D renders Earth)

1. 1. Pros:
      1. Not have to rely on locals for help/take time out of their day
      2. Less of an obligation to pay back locals in some way
   2. Cons:
      1. Maps may not be updated
      2. Local knowledge can be really useful, and we wouldn’t have that in this scenario
      3. Not using locals can create distrust with the researchers – conflicts can complicate things
      4. Do not have access or knowledge to places that the town is storing water (the storage area could be a potential location where the pathogen is entering the water source)
   3. Ethical Principle: 
      1. Concern for others: we would be doing the work on our own, reducing disturbance among the locals, keeping them in mind

1. Ask the government to assign some local leaders and supervisors to assist the research team to find the locations of the disease-causing pathogenic water 
   1. Pros:
      1. Local leaders might also help facilitate the communication between the researchers and the locals 
      2. Local government permission makes the research less intrusive 
      3. Researchers will obtain guides or a map of the locations of the water source and storage location
   2. Cons:
      1. Might be more work to set up beforehand
      2. Might cost a lot of money to train locals to properly extract the water sample (assuming locals do not have the education to do so)
      3. Local government may not welcome the research team to conduct investigation on their water
   3. Ethical Principle: 
      1. Respect for others: we would be communicating with local leaders to get their insight and expertise on the community, respecting them and their culture

1. Offer the local government access to the research and a promise to provide/implement water purification system to clean their water if harmful pathogens are discovered (could be through an organization such as Engineers Without Borders)
   1. Pros:
      1. Locals benefit from having clean water 
      2. Locals will have access to the researcher’s findings
      3. A relationship between the institution and the local government can be created
      4. School receives prestige through findings and project
   2. Cons: 
      1. Cost a lot more money to implement -promise to clean water
   3. Ethical Principle: 
      1. Promise Keeping & Trustworthiness: we will keep our promise to the community and earn their trust through them having access to all our research and us aiding them in implementing a water purification system

1. Share the information/results to the Lesotho government; make the publications accessible to the research community (who focus on researching disease-causing pathogen)
   1. Pros:
      1. Advance the knowledge frontier of disease-causing pathogen that can benefit the community (e.g., development of chemical additives that make water safer to drink).
   2. Cons:
      1. There might be competing interests among the researchers about the use of insight gained from this study (e.g., profits, reputation, service)
   3. Ethical Principle: 
      1. Transparency: We are giving the country of Lesotho access to all of our findings in exchange for conducting research in their country. This way they would see all that we did and not question any of our intentions. This can also add to trust worthiness.

1. Creating clean drinking water for Lesotho, which can increase tourism 
   1. Pro
      1. Tourism can bring more profit for the government, which could be a good motivator for why they should allow us to do research for them in order to create a potential solution for their contaminated water
      2. The locals will be able to drink clean water and not get sick as well as experience their country become wealthier through tourism
      3. Potentially create more jobs for locals as a result of the success of the tourism
   2. Con
      1. Not many foreigners might know that Lesotho is a tourist worthy-destination, so the government might not be able to afford the promotions to advertise their country as a tourist destination and they could have a low tourist turn-out.
      2. Might not be able to create a solution that is affordable or available to clean all the drinking water sources in Lesotho, so the deal would not be able to be met and the government/locals might not receive any benefits
   3. Ethical Principle:
      1. Care-based thinking: Create/maintain a relationship between the researchers and government/locals of Lesotho by being granted to find solutions to the contaminated water problem and in return, the clean water as a result of our solution can bring better health to the community and possible tourism for its beautiful scenery.

1. Reach out to healthcare workers in Lesotho and convince them to help educate the locals about the methodologies to have a safer way to drink/clean water/persuade locals to support researchers in their study. 
   1. Pros
      1. Healthcare workers would be able to understand the benefit of the research to the community and help the researchers in gaining access to the water sources
      2. Educate the community on methodologies in obtaining clean drinking water and improve their health
      3. Trusted by the local community
   2. Cons
      1. Not that easy to reach out and find the right people to trust or understand your research 
      2. Healthcare workers may be too busy or limited in number to help
      3. Healthcare workers may not know where the water sources are located
   3. Ethical Principle: Researchers would help educate the locals on methodologies in obtaining safe drinking water in exchange they would get aid in their research

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

• Peers: listening to other classmates talk about their thoughts and ideas, helped with creation of some of our ideas and overall collaboration 
• Treat a local for lunch to find out their thoughts and determine which approach would be the most appropriate solution

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. 

• Seemingly the best course of action is solution number 6. This solution would be the best because by getting health care workers to convince the locals, it already creates a deeper level of trust than having outsiders come into their land and begin testing their water. Even more so, leveraging the connections with the healthcare workers can allow for connections to the local government, this helps build even more trust because we now have community leaders advocating for the research to be conducted. Also by educating the health care workers on the importance of this research, the local community can now benefit from publishing the finding. This solution is more so mediating and facilitating the locals into pursuing this research for their own benefit with the guidance and support of the research team and local government. This solution also doesn’t allow the academic researchers to be the sole beneficiary, rather it allows the local community and government to benefit as well. 

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.

 

• Economic:

 

• • The economic implications would be possibly using these findings to pursue the development of chemical additives to create safer drinking water. The money generated would be going to further research and to the Lesotho community. The academic researchers are serving as mediators so they would also be getting some portion of the money generated from potentially finding a solution to the disease causing pathogens. Also, the money generated can be used to enhance the medical sector of the community.

 

• Social:

 

• • The community will have more trust with the local government and healthcare workers. 

 

• Environmental:

 

• • If a chemical additive is created to allow for safer drinking water, there would be potentially an increase in wildlife if we assume the disease causing pathogens are affecting the wildlife as well.