|
Hershey, D. R. 1993. Prejudices against plant biology. American Biology Teacher 55: 5-6. Prejudices Against Plant BiologyDear Editor: I have been patiently waiting for someone to write a rebuttal to the erroneous statements about plant biology made in Biology Today (Flannery 1991). Sadly, the fact that no one else objected suggests that lack of attention to and prejudices against plants in biology courses is widely accepted by biology teachers. Flannery (1991), speaking for biology teachers said, I have to admit that I don't give enough attention to plants ... in biology courses ... I'm afraid this is a problem I share with many biology teachers. I think to some extent we have allowed our prejudices to be accentuated by our students' prejudices. We are all more interested in animals: They react, they move, they even think. I agree there is a lack of coverage of plants in biology courses. Too often biology is "botany taught by a zoologist" resulting in "the popular delusion that biology is the study of animals" (Nichols 1919). The lack of plant coverage has often been decried (National Research Council 1992, Hershey 1992, Stern 1991, Honey 1987, Walch 1975, Kurtz 1958). However, it is a copout to blame the problem on student prejudices. As scientists, biology teachers are supposed to set an example for their students and use scientific objectivity to rise above personal prejudices! Biology teacher prejudices are more likely to shape student prejudices, not the other way around. Even some biology textbooks seem to encourage prejudices against botany. Biggs et al. (1991) prominently features a quote by James Thurber, I passed all the other courses that I took at my university, but I could never pass botany ... Actually, it is not prejudice but ignorance, given the central importance of plants in biology and the central importance of plants on Earth. "Man and all other animals are in reality quest of plants on this earth and without green plants as a direct and indirect source of food, animal life would soon cease." (Karling 1956). Biologically, this is a "plant planet." It is not true that, "We are all more interested in animals." Darley (1990) termed such an attitude "animal chauvinism." Nor is it correct to imply that only animals react and move. Plants react to a myriad of stimuli, e.g. phototropism, gravitropism, thigmotropism, photoperiodism, etc. Plants may be immobile but plant parts move, and plants make up for their lack of mobility with highly mobile pollen, seeds and fruit (Darley 1990). Botany has been called the "Cinderella of the biological science" (Steward 1967). Because of the longstanding discrimination against and ignorance about botany, biology teachers should be acting as botany's "fairy godmother" but too often seem to act like the "wicked stepsisters." David R. Hershey [Current email: [email protected]]
Biggs, A.L. (1991). Biology, the dynamics of life. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Darley, W.M. (1990). The essence of 'plantness'. American Biology Teacher, 52, 354-357. Flannery, M.C. (1992). Considering plants. American Biology Teacher, 53, 306-309. Hershey, D.R. (1992). Making plant biology curricula relevant. BioScience, 42, 188-191. Honey, J.N. (1987). Where have all the flowers gone? - The place of plants in school science. Journal of Biological Education, 21, 185-189. Karling, J.S. (1956). Plants and man. American Biology Teacher, 18, 9-13. Kurtz, E.B. Jr. (1958). Botany - not posy picking. American Biology Teacher, 20, 281-282. National Research Council (1992). Plant biology research and training for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Nichols, G.E. (1919). The general biology course and the teaching of elementary botany and zoology in American colleges and universities. Science, 50, 509-517. Stern, W.L. (1991). Plant paucity. BioScience, 41, 530. Steward, F.C. (1967). Botany in the biology curriculum. BioScience, 17, 88-90. Walch, P.E. (1975). Blindfold botanists as a motivational force for high school biology students. Science Teacher, 42(3), 40-41.
|