The Fast Grow Corporation: A Question of Contamination Case Study

The case raises some serious ethical concerns. Considering that Erikson has a good reason to suspect that the activities of the Fast Grow Corporation have caused extremely dangerous contamination of the environment, it is his duty as a member of a democratic governmental apparatus to continue his investigation. Since he did not discontinue his activity immediately, it is safe to assume he also considers it his duty to serve the public interest in this situation.

Moreover, considering the case is linked to the new type of fertilizer, its use can likely cause ecological problems on a much wider scale if the company chooses to start selling it disregarding the potential risks. The contamination also indicates the lack of proper testing on the part of the Fast Grow. It is important to expose the issue since it might be connected to corrupt scientists or simply inefficient testing procedures. The potential implications of the issue call for immediate action and deep investigation which will allow Erikson to figure out how severe the problem is. Since it is also entirely possible that the contamination is unrelated to the Fast Grow activities, identifying the true source of the problem should be a priority.

However, approaching this issue head-on would be unwise. If Erikson continues his activity disregarding the orders from a superior, he is likely to lose his position and the ability to deal with the problem. Thus, the situation warrants a more subtle approach. There are several ways to tackle the issue. The first is to become a whistleblower. Erikson cannot openly contact the press since it will get him fired and possibly cause a backlash from the supporters of the Democratic Party. By leaking the whole story to the media, Erikson can allow the journalists to handle the further investigation. At the same time, he will be more or less protected by the journalist ethics which will hopefully prevent them from disclosing the source of the

information. However, there are a number of issues with this approach. First of all, journalists are not qualified to deal with the environmental issues. They may misinterpret the data or fail to contact the appropriate specialist who might help them. Secondly, the journalist ethics are not infallible, and there is no guarantee that one of the numerous sides involved in the situation would not bribe them. Finally, if the Erikson’s involvement is exposed, he will definitely lose his position. It is also worth noting that the information on the dangers of the fertilizers can turn out to be false. In that case, disclosing it to the media will harm both the company and his department for no good reason. Considering all of these factors, it is unwise for him to shift all of the responsibility to the journalists.

Another possible solution is to try and negotiate a deal with Simpson. Erikson can guarantee that the results of the investigation will be available only to the workers of their department. In exchange, his superior will allow him to continue his work. Simpson is likely to be interested in the results since any problems identified can be used as a bargaining tool in the political struggle that is clearly going on. Considering the “open government” politics of the current mayor exposing his involvement in the attempts to prevent the disclosure will definitely harm him. On the other hand, if he receives the information about the issue, it will give him a powerful tool to influence any of his supporters involved in the project, solidifying his power. Whether Simpson wants to support Fitzgerald as a new mayor or help the current one keep his position, the results of the investigation will be useful. Erikson will get a chance to identify the source of the problem and easily resolve it provided it turns out to be unrelated to the Fast Grow. However, such approach would mean that there is a good chance that the results of the Erikson’s work will never be presented to the general public. That makes continuing the investigation useless since even if it discovers the root causes of contamination, there would be no way to resolve the issue.

Finally, the approach which I view as preferable is to try and seek support within the department. Since Erikson’s superiors are too caught up in the power struggle to notice an extremely severe issue, it seems wise to seek conscientious individuals among the workers of the department. Ethics dictate that Erikson must explain the risks associated with helping him, but encourage his colleagues to do their job properly and get to the root of the issue. With the support of those people, he will likely be able to continue his investigation efficiently and complete it successfully. The issue with this solution is that there might be no likely supporters among the Erikson’s subordinates. Moreover, approaching the potential supporters he risks being reported to Simpson. However, in this situation Erikson has a great ability to mitigate the personal risks by picking the candidates himself. With the limited resources and the need for secrecy, conducting the investigation will be problematic. If the results point to Fast Grow as the cause of the contamination, the only way to resolve the issue would be to leak that information to the press. That will further put Erikson’s personal well-being at risk. But overall, this approach seems to be the best possible solution which allows Erikson to fulfill his duty as a government official without exposing himself too much, provided he is able to find supporters.