Kingsland Sharon E, Taiz Lincoln
Department of History of Science and Technology, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Department of Molecular, Cell, & Developmental Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.
Protoplasma. 2025 Mar;262(2):223-246. doi: 10.1007/s00709-024-01988-1. Epub 2024 Sep 14.
Proponents of the concepts of plant intelligence and plant neurobiology often use historical sources as "evidence" and argue that eminent past scientists have supported ideas of plant intelligence, memory, learning, decision-making, agency, and consciousness. Historical sources include writings by Charles Darwin, Julius von Sachs, F. W. Went, K. V. Thimann, Barbara McClintock, and J. B. Lamarck. Advocates of plant neurobiology also argue that the ideas of J. C. Bose, an Indian scientist who is considered an important forerunner of plant neurobiology, were suppressed chiefly because of racism. Plant neurobiology has been criticized on scientific grounds, but there has not been close scrutiny of the use of historical sources as a form of evidence. We provide the first in-depth analysis of how historical sources have been used and misused, and conclude that there is a consistent pattern of distortion of these sources. Distortions include the use of erroneous quotations, alteration of quotations, selective quotations without context, and misinterpretation and exaggeration of historical statements. In the case of Bose, we show that there were legitimate scientific reasons for questioning his interpretations of botanical experiments and argue that this context cannot be ignored in evaluating contemporary responses to Bose. Overall, the common practice by proponents of plant intelligence and plant consciousness of uncritically citing the words of eminent scientists of the past, taken out of their historical context to bolster their arguments, should not be confused with scientific evidence supporting these concepts, even when the quotations, themselves, are accurate.
植物智能和植物神经生物学概念的支持者常常将历史资料用作“证据”,并声称过去的杰出科学家曾支持过有关植物智能、记忆、学习、决策、能动性和意识的观点。历史资料包括查尔斯·达尔文、朱利叶斯·冯·萨克斯、F.W. 温特、K.V. 蒂曼、芭芭拉·麦克林托克和J.B. 拉马克的著作。植物神经生物学的支持者还认为,印度科学家J.C. 博斯的观点——他被视为植物神经生物学的一位重要先驱——主要因种族主义而受到压制。植物神经生物学受到了基于科学依据的批评,但对于将历史资料用作一种证据形式的做法,尚未进行过仔细审查。我们首次深入分析了历史资料是如何被使用和滥用的,并得出结论:这些资料存在一种持续的歪曲模式。歪曲包括使用错误的引文、更改引文、脱离上下文的选择性引文,以及对历史陈述的错误解读和夸大。就博斯的情况而言,我们表明对他对植物学实验的解读提出质疑存在合理的科学原因,并认为在评估当代对博斯的反应时不能忽视这一背景。总体而言,植物智能和植物意识的支持者不加批判地引用过去杰出科学家的言论,并脱离其历史背景来支持自己论点的常见做法,不应与支持这些概念的科学证据相混淆,即便引文本身是准确的。