CASE STUDY: Heavy-Metal Contamination of Produce in a Community A study was undertaken to examine the amount of heavy metals in regularly consumed...

CASE STUDY: Heavy-Metal Contamination of Produce in a Community A study was undertaken to examine the amount of heavy metals in regularly consumed foods in a community. The university based research team was supported by government funding. The investigators found marginally high levels of heavy metals in a variety of fresh produce that was grown by a local farming cooperative. Although the investigators wanted to release the results of the study publicly, the government sponsors were concerned about the potential economic impact on the community. The investigators postponed the release of the study findings to the public so that the farming cooperative could be informed about the problem and given the opportunity to reduce the amount of heavy metals in the soil (and consequently in the . produce). This delay in informing the public about the study results was also intended to prevent public panic and protect the economic interests of the community.

Questions for Discussion 1. What are the obligations of the investigators to the community affected by the heavy-metal contamination? To the government sponsors? To the farming cooperative? How should the investigators have met these obligations? 2. Did the researchers compromise their obligation to communicate the results of their study in a timely fashion by postponing the release of the study results to the affected community? 3. Who should the investigators have informed first about the results of the study: the government sponsors, the farming cooperative, the affected community, or the scientific community? Should the investigators have submitted their report to rigorous scientific peer review before informing the community about the results of the study?