This file is also available in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). 
by
Laurie A. Parendes, Department of Geosciences, Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
Scott H. Burris, Department of Agricultural Education, University of Missouri—Columbia
This case was written for “Environmental Issues,” an introductory course taught in a Geosciences Department. The course is required for environmental studies/science majors, but most students are non-majors who take the course in order to meet their General Education requirement in the “Ethics” category. The overall goals of the course are to introduce scientific principles that are relevant to environmental issues and to help students appreciate that the causes of and solutions to environmental “problems” are complex. This case study would be appropriate for any introductory course that addresses human-environment interactions.
Underlying many current environmental issues are technological developments that have both positive and negative effects. The development of synthetic chemical pesticides (especially since World War II) illustrates that dichotomy. On the one hand, pesticide use has become widespread for a variety of purposes, including the obvious control of pests in commercial agriculture, but also for controlling various types of pests in homes, lawns/gardens, along road sides, etc. On the other hand, there are concerns about how such pesticide use may negatively affect the environment and human health. Rachel Carson raised these concerns in 1962 in her famous book, Silent Spring, and these concerns continue to be voiced today. This case study asks a fundamental question—Can we do without pesticides?— and gives students the opportunity to explore the ecological, ethical, economic, social, and political issues that are related to pesticide use.
After completing this case study, students should be able to:
This case can be conducted in one 50-minute period, although longer class time could be devoted to it if desired. Specific prior knowledge about pests and pesticides is not required to complete this case. However, assigning specific readings (and modifying the questions accordingly) would allow for more in-depth discussion. For example, many introductory environmental science texts have sections on pests and pesticides that could be assigned ahead of time and serve as a springboard for discussion.
The case is in three parts and is designed to be taught using an “interrupted” method, in which there is progressive disclosure of the material: students read / discuss one part of the case before being given the next part. At the beginning of class, students should be placed into small groups of four to five students. The general format for running the case is as follows:
Suggested timeframe for this case is as follows: Part I—10 minutes; Part II—15 minutes; and Part III—20 minutes.
This part sets the stage for the case: a newly elected county commissioner is waiting for a commission meeting to begin. The main agenda item is whether to ban pesticide use in the county, and a number of interest groups are represented. It may be useful to remind students that although Johnsonville County and this commission meeting are fictitious, the scenario is realistic. A county commission could be considering such a ban, and they would likely hold a public meeting to get input prior to making a decision.
This part of the case includes more specific points that are raised in the commission meeting. Although the full text of each speaker’s comments is not included in the case study, there should be sufficient information for students to identify major benefits and harmful effects of pesticides. It may be helpful to generate two lists on the board during the full-class discussion of Questions 1 and 2.
This part of the case shifts the students’ focus to the commission’s final decision on whether to ban pesticides in Johnsonville County. Although the scenario presented in this case is hypothetical, the underlying ethical issues and the varied implications of the decision (either in favor of or opposing the ban) are relevant to a variety of environmental issues.
Answers to the questions posed in the case study are provided in a separate answer key to the case. Those answers are password-protected. To access the answers for this case, go to the key. You will be prompted for a username and password. If you have not yet registered with us, you can see whether you are eligible for an account by reviewing our password policy and then apply online or write to answerkey@sciencecases.org.
A follow-up assignment / activity specifically related to this case would be to have the students create a “Part IV—The Outcome” to the case: a resolution that addresses the major perspectives identified in the case. Sample assignment: Acting as a Johnsonville County Commissioner, prepare a policy on pesticide use in Johnsonville County and provide a rationale for your decision. This could be an individual or group assignment, and it could be in written format, an oral presentation, or both.
The following is a short list of related topics that could extend a unit on pests/pesticides:
Acknowledgements: This case study is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0341279 as part of the NSF-funded Case Studies in Science Workshop held at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, on May 17–21, 2004. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Date Posted: 07/18/05 nas
This file is also available in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF).
Originally published at http://www.sciencecases.org/pesticides/pesticides_notes.asp
Copyright © 1999–2010 by the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. Please see our usage guidelines, which outline our policy concerning permissible reproduction of this work.
