Reading practice 6
Sheila Jennings was making her rounds at the Boston Botanical Gardens gently humming songs to the lilies she was watering and speaking directly to a patch of ferns into which she was scooping fertilizer. To a casual observer, she appeared to be entertaining herself during her morning routine. but Sheila's friendly behavior around the plants is actually called "social reinforcement" and is one of her job require ments1. The idea that interacting with these plants will help them flourish has been common sense to gardeners for ages. but it has attained some scientific credibility mainly since the work of Clive Buckner first came to light2.
Forty years ago he conducted a series of experiments on his plants using "lie-detectors," polygraph galvanometer equipment. These experiments led him to conclude that plants possess a means of perception that allows them to react to human thoughts.
The scientific community was shocked. It is already hard enough to prove that higher order mammals have consciousness, despite many experiments that seem to prove the ability of non-human animals to learn and perform complex. non-instinctive behaviors3. To contend that plants have some mechanism of mind-reading goes so far beyond the orthodoxy of modern scientific beliefs that anyone suggesting they might was instantly considered a heretic.
However, a steady flow of research over the next two decades would continue to revisit and replicate Clive Buckner's hypothesis. During his original experiment, Buckner noticed that his plant would produce a sharp and immediate response when he attempted to visualize the act of burning the plant's leaves. Botanists at Kansas State found they could produce a similar response by cutting the leaves of an adjacent plant. Researchers in Wyoming discovered that plants respond to the distress signals of a spider in the room. A New Jersey scientist was able to cause a plant to trigger a switch on an electric train set every time he gave himself a painful shock to the finger. One of Buckner's colleagues showed him how she was able to keep a detached leaf moist and lush for two months through daily positive encouragement while a control leaf which received no positive attention had completely withered to a dry, brittle brown4.
Although these experiments seem to add fuel to the flames of Buckner's speculations about plant consciousness he is willing to acknowledge the scientific issues involved in replicating the experiments5. "Many others have failed to produce the same effects," he says. "The outcomes of the experiments seem very dependent on the experimenter's relationship to his plants."
Similarly, the interpretations of these experiments seem very dependent on the philosophical and metaphysical beliefs of the interpreter. Many people without any botanical credentials are anxious to latch onto these experiments to support ideas they may have about the holistic interconnectivity of the universe. After all, if a plant in a lead box (shut off from all electromagnetic radiation) is able to react to a human thought as it seemed to be able to do in one experiment, there must be some communication taking place between plant and human mind that is outside our normal scientific conception of cause and effect
It is clear that plants are responsive to certain kinds of interaction, but for what reason and by what means? Do plants grow better in the presence of music because they like it6? Does their reaction to researchers' thoughts of harming them represent fear? Does their ability to react uniquely to someone who has previously killed a plant in front of them signify that they have memory? Are experimenters merely interpreting the reactions of plants to agree with their premeditated goal of finding consciousness? (Scientists call this confirmation bias.) Are they ignoring the possibilities of alternative explanations for the sake of justifying their faulty hypotheses? (Scientists call this self-deception.) As Cornell University professor Betty Wilkinson sees it, "Buckner's work opened up a Pandora's hoy of had science "7
Scientists interested in this emerging field of research. such as Eldon Byrd of the Naval Research Facility and Max Crusella of a Marina Del Rey laboratory, think that there is a mountain of evidence that plants are sensitive to their environments in ways that traditional science is not equipped to describe. "Perhaps some enthusiastic researchers have proposed overzealous explanations to their observations," says Crusella, "but it is completely well-grounded to believe that there needs to be some kind of new scientific explanation for what are otherwise mysterious phenomena."8
On the other side of this debate are resounding skeptics such as Professor Wilkinson and Steve Karnell, a writer for a leading scientific journal. "Lacking in all these so-called 'experiments' are ingredients fundamental to the scientific method like control groups and blind studies." Karnell complains. "The fact that these experimenters freely admit to their observations being difficult to repeat by other, more skeptical scientists is evidence that the phenomena upon which the crazy notion of mind-reading plants is based are unreliable from the start.'9
Clive Buckner and others continuing the pursuit of his inquiries merely chuckle at that line of argument. "We are trying to demonstrate the fact that plants develop subtle yet meaningful connections with their caretakers, so the fact thai the outcomes of experiments are varied is actually suppor for our notion that plant behavior is dynamic and responsive to a given individual."10
