Dilemma: Right vs. Right
Coral Corruption: A Dilemma from Down Under
As a young university graduate, Chris found himself working for a scientific research organization studying pollution damage to coral on Australia's Great Barrier Reef. The organization had a problem common to all scientific research--how to get enough funding to carry on the work. All their worries appeared to be solved when quite out of the blue one of the large multinational corporations operating in the country offered significant ongoing financial support. There was a "hitch," however. The company had recently suffered adverse publicity through an article claiming they were themselves responsible for some of the pollution. In return for the financial support they not only wanted the research company to refute these claims, but also to study a section of the reef where there were no pollution problems. Bribery and corruption, you say? Yes, it was hardly a right-versus-right dilemma for the multinational corporation; most certainly downright wrong.
But was there a right-versus-right dilemma for the scientists trying to solve the barrier reef's problems without the necessary funding to accomplish their task? Was it better to make a short-term compromise in order to carry out work that could benefit the environment for the long term and that otherwise might not be possible? It seemed that efforts to find other sponsors were meeting with no success at all.
What should Chris do?
Note: This and other dilemmas on this site come to you without their real-life resolutions. We encourage you to think for yourself about how you might resolve them, since the nature of each dilemma is highly individualistic. In sharing these dilemmas, we do not endorse them in any way, but rather offer them for your consideration.
