Plant “intelligence” changes nothing
2020; Springer Nature; Volume: 21; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês
10.15252/embr.202050395
ISSN1469-3178
AutoresDavid G. Robinson, Andreas Draguhn, Lincoln Taiz,
Tópico(s)Plant Parasitism and Resistance
ResumoCorrespondence16 April 2020Open Access Plant “intelligence” changes nothing David G Robinson Corresponding Author David G Robinson [email protected] Centre for Organismal Studies, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany Search for more papers by this author Andreas Draguhn Andreas Draguhn Institut für Physiologie und Pathophysiologie, Medizinischen Fakultät, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany Search for more papers by this author Lincoln Taiz Lincoln Taiz Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA Search for more papers by this author David G Robinson Corresponding Author David G Robinson [email protected] Centre for Organismal Studies, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany Search for more papers by this author Andreas Draguhn Andreas Draguhn Institut für Physiologie und Pathophysiologie, Medizinischen Fakultät, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany Search for more papers by this author Lincoln Taiz Lincoln Taiz Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA Search for more papers by this author Author Information David G Robinson *,1, Andreas Draguhn2 and Lincoln Taiz3 1Centre for Organismal Studies, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany 2Institut für Physiologie und Pathophysiologie, Medizinischen Fakultät, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany 3Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA EMBO Reports (2020)21:e50395https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202050395 Comment on: F Baluška & S Mancuso (March 2020) See reply: F Baluška & S Mancuso (May 2020) PDFDownload PDF of article text and main figures. ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyWechatReddit Figures & Info We view the publication of the article by Baluška & Mancuso in EMBO reports 1 with considerable scepticism. The authors, principal advocates of the plant neurobiology concept, have tried in numerous articles to disseminate the notion that plants are intelligent organisms that make conscious decisions, based on hypothesized cognitive acts. In several papers, we have taken great pains to separate fact from fiction in regard to “plant intelligence” 2-4. We conclude that there is no solid scientific evidence to support the claims that plants possess neurons or have the equivalent of a brain, feel pain or contain a memory. Words like “smart” and “intelligent” are now being used rather loosely as in “smart phones” and “intelligent machines,” and it is only in this very broad sense that plants can be considered “intelligent”. Part of the confusion stems from the use of the misleading term “ecological strategy”. Plants in an ecosystem do not stand around thinking about what their “ecological strategy” will be, and then act on their decisions, as in game theory. Most ecologists understand that “ecological strategy” is a misleading teleological shorthand for evolved adaptive behaviour determined by natural selection. Baluška & Mancuso seem to have taken the term “ecological strategy” literally in their ideas about plants. In short, plants are not “conscious organisms” that make conscious strategic decisions. If current climate models are incomplete (as they most assuredly are), it is not because they are overlooking plant intelligence or consciousness. It is because we still have much to learn about the adaptive responses and interactions of plants in the biosphere. Attempts to humanize plants may be in line with current trends towards rampant anthropomorphism in biology, but paint a highly distorted picture of plant life. The present article in EMBO Reports adds an extra dimension to the apparent cognitive and social abilities of plants: sentences like “A new view of higher plants as cognitive and intelligent organisms that actively manipulate their environment to serve their needs” and “Humans are not excluded from plants’ manipulative behaviour…” appeal to psychological and neurobiological concepts of social cognition without providing empirical basis for such a far-reaching proposal. We agree that plants make an indispensable contribution to homeostasis in the biosphere and that they are highly complex organisms featuring multiple interactions with their environment. We maintain, however, that the plant science community is not benefited by the approach taken by plant neurobiologists and that it is highly misleading to the general public. References Balušzka F, Mancuso S (2020) EMBO Rep 21: e50109PubMedGoogle Scholar Alpi A, Amrhein N, Bertl A et al (2007) Trends Plant Sci 12: 135–136CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Taiz L, Alkon D, Draguhn A et al (2019) Trends Plant Sci 24: 677–687CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Taiz L, Alkon D, Draguhn A et al (2020) Trends Plant Sci 25: 218–220CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Previous ArticleNext Article Read MoreAbout the coverClose modalView large imageVolume 21,Issue 5,06 May 2020This month's cover highlights the article Small molecule inhibition of aging‐associated chromosomal instability delays cellular senescence by Monika Barroso‐Vilares, Elsa Logarinho and colleagues. Small‐molecule enhancement of kinetochore‐microtubule (k‐MT) dynamics rescues aging phenotypes. The number of k‐MT attachments is increased in cells from elderly donors (middle image) in comparison to cells from young donors (upper image), and is restored following treatment with an agonist of Kif2C/MCAK MT‐depolymerizing activity (lower image). Scientific image by Monika Barroso‐Vilares, Joana Catarina Macedo and Elsa Logarinho (© Elsa Logarinho, i3S, University of Porto). Volume 21Issue 56 May 2020In this issue ReferencesRelatedDetailsLoading ...
Referência(s)