Does anyone want to know about the Resurrection Plant?
Well if you do, you might not get much from this post. However, to make up for that disappointment, I send gracious greetings to any reader out there, and I also express my wish that in future, the references to viruses and pandemics hereunder seem really, REALLY dated.
The Resurrection Plant, Selaginella Lepidophylla.
This botanical mystery popped into my head just recently, because I was thinking about viruses, which led me to thinking about biology, which led me to thinking about general science, which led me to considering my scientific ignorance, which led me then to recall my history with science classes, which led me, at last, to a failed experiment I once performed, involving a “resurrection plant.”
Despite the failure of the experiment, the plant itself still fascinates me. Here’s the story of my encounter with the plant:
In order to boost our college resumes and overall academic glory, teachers in my high school encouraged extracurricular science experiments, projects that we undertook with local college professors in their laboratories. I was a junior in high school when my chemistry teacher brought up this idea – more like an urgent proposition – to the class. Being academically competitive and worried (naturally) about getting into an Ivy League school the following year, I opted for the experiment. Vanderbilt University offered a program allowing high schoolers to work with professors after-hours on individual experiments. When a student signed up for the work, the University assigned the student to a professor. I do not remember naming a preference for what type of science I would study. I think the University assigned projects randomly.
Whether or not my memory has correctly construed the selection process, today I recall that I received an assignment and thought to myself, back then, “Ehh…”
In general, up to that point, I had not liked science class (of any type) all that much. Freshman year, science class consisted of biology, which had culminated in frog dissection, which had culminated in the dissolution of all my hopes for a future in medicine. Sophomore year – I cannot even remember the required science course, which speaks volumes about my interest in and aptitude for science.
However, Junior year, I definitely remember, consisted of Advanced Placement chemistry. I felt no chemistry with chemistry. Elements, atoms, electrons jumping from shell to shell, equations resulting in solids and liquids and unknowns, experiments involving beakers and toxic matter. Please. Plus, chemistry class that year took place right after lunch. The timing of class was tricky for me, because it occurred 1) later in the day, past my point of exhaustion; 2) after eating my rice cakes, yes, but I was still hungry and thinking about food; 3) at a point when my irritability spiked, on all fronts: anorexia anxiety, restriction regrets, and physical weariness.
Anyway, my assignment at Vanderbilt hooked me up with Dr. Eichmeier. I do not remember his first name, but his last name provides enough information. Dr. Eichmeier’s specialty was [drumroll]: BIOCHEMISTRY! Great. Let’s combine my two least-favorite sciences shall we?
I met with the professor after school ended – somewhere around 4 p.m. – on the University campus. These meetings, to my (again, possibly faulty) recollection, abounded with misery of a lighter sort – hunger on my end, big-time; anxiety on my end, big-time (I wanted to appear smart and from the first moment, this appearance vaporized); discomfort on my end, big-time (I equate slightly off-scent labs with gyms; the two indoor spaces conflate in my head, resulting in overall unease)…etc. I cannot tell you the professor’s point of view, but I assume we both agreed about my overall inaptitude for science.
Dr. Eichmeier at least tried to run an experiment with me, even though I could tell he could tell I had a malfunctioning central nervous system, as well as confusion over what the hell we were doing.
Whatever the case, I remember the gist of what we attempted to do. Eichmeier had a stash of these plants collected from the Southwestern United States, little tumbleweed-type things that look just like that: desiccated, dead weeds all jumbled up into a ball. However, if one immerses the plant in water (the ball has a sort of base on it, but the base is dry and dusty, too), after a few hours, the ball blooms into a green-leafed plant that, when removed from the water and set face-up, resembles a verdant saucer made of leaves. Quite pretty – symmetric rows of lacy leaves spiraling out to the edges.
The plant could exist in the desiccated state for years, and one could assume that after a while, it would actually die. But no matter how many plants Eichmeier (and other scientists) collected, each plant opened up after submersion in water. When drying out, the plant produced a sugar called trehalose, which combated the salts in the plant as the water drained away. So, in essence, to withstand a long period of drought, the plant made its own sugar.
Eichmeier’s question: he wanted to study the metabolic activity of this thing while in an activated, hydrated state, to discover ways in which the plant might use its own sustenance and stay alive so long without environmental nourishment.
Our experiment: to take samples of the green leaves and run them through assays and see what happened. (Something like that.)
The result: a negative number, which of course made no sense and reflected the fact that I had no idea what I was doing, and therefore had not run proper assays. I remember Dr. Eichimeier scratching his goatee and saying, “Well, we could try another assay.” Yet after weeks of working on this project, in the peculiar-smelling, cramped lab, I told the professor, “No, that’s okay.”
End of the story: I did not enter a science fair that year; I won no academic accolades. I hypothesize (a very scientific action on my part, ha) that I simply did not put my “all” into the experiment because I did not have an “all”; I was starving.
What can we extrapolate from this set of circumstances?
As for the plant: go with the obvious. After submersion in nutrition (the water activates the trehalose and good things happen), the plant flourishes. Full-stop. And I mean FULL SUBMERSION in nutrition for a while. As long as it takes.
As for the experiment: I cannot function properly in life without full energy. I do not care how much you may have accomplished on half the fuel you needed – you could have done it all much better, much more happily, if you had eaten properly throughout the work. In its desiccated state, the plant looks like dead debris. In its hydrated state, when metabolism and photosynthesis have reached maximum function, the plant looks pretty, and a whole lot more content.
As for the metaphor in general: humans are not plants, and we do not thrive in deserts without ample resources. Therefore, when I set off for the metaphorical desert of “eating disorder,” I went where I did not belong, and where I could not fully live. I took that route in the deserted direction because I was afraid of fully living. Yet, I had misunderstood what “fully living” means – I had not considered that I could fully live however I wanted (not as anyone else asked of me) if I gave up restriction.