Advertisement

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 597–605 | Cite as

The mercury game: evaluating a negotiation simulation that teaches students about science-policy interactions

  • Leah C. StokesEmail author
  • Noelle E. Selin
Article

Abstract

Environmental negotiations and policy decisions take place at the science-policy interface. While this is well known within academic literature, it is often difficult to convey how science and policy interact to students in environmental studies and sciences courses. We argue that negotiation simulations, as an experiential learning tool, are one effective way to teach students about how science and policy interact in decision-making. We developed a negotiation simulation, called the mercury game, based on the global mercury treaty negotiations. To evaluate the game, we conducted surveys before and after the game was played in university classrooms across North America. For science students, the simulation communicates how politics and economics affect environmental negotiations. For environmental studies and public policy students, the mercury simulation demonstrates how scientific uncertainty can affect decision-making. Using the mercury game as an educational tool allows students to learn about complex interactions between science and society and develop communication skills.

Keywords

Science education Environmental curriculum International negotiations Science-policy interface Mercury policy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the US National Science Foundation Atmospheric Chemistry Program (no. 1053648). We thank Larry Susskind (MIT) for his contribution to designing and writing the mercury game and Jessica Haskins and Priyanka Chatterjee (MIT) for research assistance. We thank all game participants who filled out surveys and the North American university faculty who incorporated the game into their courses. The mercury game is available to download for free at mit.edu/mercurygame and at the Program on Negotiation website at Harvard University at www.pon.harvard.edu

References

  1. Anderson WA, Banerjee U, Drennan CL et al (2011) Changing the culture of science education at research universities. Science 331:152–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arctic Monitoring Assessment Programme (2011) AMAP Assessment 2011: Mercury in the ArcticGoogle Scholar
  3. Asal V, Blake EL (2006) Creating simulations for political science education. J Polit Sci Educ 2:1–18. doi: 10.1080/15512160500484119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aubusson P, Fogwill S, Barr R, Perkovic L (1997) What happens when students do simulation-role-play in science? Res Sci Educ 27:565–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernstein S (2002) International institutions and the framing of domestic policies: the Kyoto protocol and Canada’s response to climate change. Policy Sci 35:203–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Besley JC, Tanner AH (2011) What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Sci Commun 33:239–263. doi: 10.1177/1075547010386972 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Betsill M, Corell E (2001) NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: a framework for analysis. Glob Environ Polit 1:65–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Betsill MM, Corell E (2008) NGO diplomacy: the influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environmental negotiations. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark W, Tomich T, Noordwijk M Van, et al. (2010) Toward a general theory of boundary work: insights from the CGIAR’s natural resource management programs. Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehrlich PR (2011) A personal view: environmental education—its content and delivery. J Environ Stud Sci 1:6–13. doi: 10.1007/s13412-011-0006-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feinstein N (2011) Salvaging science literacy. Sci Educ 95:168–185. doi: 10.1002/sce.20414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon E, Schirra S, Hollander J (2011) Immersive planning: a conceptual model for designing public participation with new technologies. Environ Plan B Plan Des 38:505–519. doi: 10.1068/b37013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Handelsman J, Ebert-May D, Beichner R et al (2004) Scientific teaching. Science 304:521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jasanoff S (1994) The fifth branch: science advisors as policymakers. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R et al (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kohler PM (2006) Science, PIC and POPs: negotiating the membership of chemical review committees under the Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 15:293–303. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9388.2006.00531.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Makinster JG (2010) The inclusion of environmental education in science teacher education. Incl Environ Educ Sci Teach Educ. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9222-9 Google Scholar
  18. McLaughlin SA, Doezema D, Sklar DP (2002) Human simulation in emergency medicine training: a model curriculum. Acad Emerg Med 9:1310–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McMillan EE, Wright T, Beazley K (2004) Impact of a university-level environmental studies class on students’ values. J Environ Educ 35:19–27. doi: 10.3200/JOEE.35.3.19-27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson NM (2006) Global environmental assessments. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Najam A (2001) Getting beyond the lowest common denominator: developing countries in global environmental negotiations. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Najam A, Christopoulou I, Moomaw W (2004) The emergent “system” of global environmental governance. Glob Environ Polit 4:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. National Academy of Sciences (2000) Toxicological effects of methylmercury.Google Scholar
  24. Peters HP, Brossard D, de Cheveigné S et al (2008) Interactions with the mass media. Science 321:204–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pielke RA Jr (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Selin NE (2009) Global biogeochemical cycling of mercury: a review. Annu Rev Environ Resour 34:43–63. doi: 10.1146/annurev.environ.051308.084314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Selin H (2010) Global governance of hazardous chemicals: challenges of multilevel management. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Selin H (2014) Global environmental law and treaty-making on hazardous substances: the minamata convention and mercury abatement. Glob Environ Polit 14:1–19. doi: 10.1162/GLEP CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Selin NE, Selin H (2006) Global politics of mercury pollution: the need for multi-scale governance. RECIEL 15:258–269Google Scholar
  30. Simonneaux L (2001) Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. Int J Sci Educ 23:903–927. doi: 10.1080/09500690010016076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Somerville R, Hassol S (2011) Communicating the science of climate change. Phys Today 64:48–53. doi: 10.1063/PT.3.1296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sterman JD (2011) Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world. Clim Chang 108:811–826. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0189-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Susskind LE (1994) Environmental diplomacy: negotiating more effective global agreements. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Susskind LE, Corburn J (2000) Using simulations to teach negotiation: pedagogical theory and practice. Simul. und Planspiel den SozialwissenschaftenGoogle Scholar
  35. Weber JR, Word CS (2001) The communication process as evaluative context: what do nonscientists hear when scientists speak? Bioscience 51:487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban Studies and PlanningMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Engineering Systems DivisionMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary SciencesMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations