Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39276228›Full record

ReviewProtoplasma2025

Plant "intelligence" and the misuse of historical sources as evidence.

Sharon E Kingsland, Lincoln Taiz

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Protoplasma, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sharon E KingslandDepartment of History of Science and Technology, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St, Baltimore, MD, USA. sharon@jhu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-3114-1373
Lincoln TaizDepartment of Molecular, Cell, & Developmental Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

PlantsHistory, 20th CenturyNeurobiologyPlant Physiological PhenomenaBarbara McClintockCharles DarwinJ. C. BosePlant agencyPlant intelligencePlant neurobiology

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.