University of British Columbia Professor of Forest Ecology and bestselling author Suzanne Simard has been at the forefront of research on plant communication and intelligence. Simard is globally renowned for her work on how trees interact and communicate using below-ground fungal networks and has authored more than 200 peer-reviewed articles as well as the bestselling book “Finding the Mother Tree.” But with this recognition has come some pushback. Simard discusses resistance to her work in this excerpt from an interview with Bioneers Senior Producer J.P. Harpignies. 

JP: Could you discuss the growing recognition of intelligence in nature and its implications for forest ecosystems, particularly in relation to the concept of the mycelial network and the idea of forests as intelligent and adaptive systems?

SUZANNE: Sure. In biology, we’ve always employed anthropomorphic language to describe natural phenomena. Take, for instance, the concept of plant families, which has been a staple in our discourse for centuries. Similarly, in forestry, terms like “parent trees” have long been used to describe influential trees within ecosystems. When I began referring to these influential trees as “mother trees,” it was to emphasize their crucial role in forest regeneration. Despite facing backlash for this terminology, it’s worth noting that terms like “parent tree” are already common in genetics and have been for some time.

Our language is saturated with anthropomorphic expressions, and that isn’t necessarily negative; it aids comprehension by enabling us to relate to complex concepts more easily.

Regarding the intelligence of forests, it’s important to consider language again. Historically, intelligence has been predominantly associated with humans, reflecting a deeply ingrained anthropocentric worldview prevalent in Western culture. This bias leads to skepticism about the existence of intelligence in nature, as it doesn’t align with our perception of ourselves as the pinnacle of creation. However, when we examine the traits commonly associated with intelligence, such as decision-making and adaptability, it becomes apparent that these qualities are prevalent in natural systems. For instance, in mycorrhizal networks, we observe intricate patterns reminiscent of biological neural networks, suggesting a sophisticated level of organization and decision-making. The collaboration and coordination seen in ecosystems further underscore the intelligence inherent in nature. Despite debates surrounding anthropomorphism, the forest exhibits all the hallmarks of intelligence.

JP: The landscape has shifted in mainstream science. Intelligence used to be a bit of a touchy subject, with some scientists preferring terms like “smartness” or “cleverness” to avoid stirring up controversy. But times are changing. After your book’s success, did it give you more clout, especially with politicians and the media? Did it make people sit up and take notice when you spoke?

SUZANNE: It definitely brought me closer to government decision-makers. It wasn’t necessarily because they sought me out, but rather because the public, inspired by the book, started asking questions. That increased engagement propelled me into higher-level discussions than I’d ever had before, which I see as a positive outcome.

As for the book itself, my goal was to convey the latest research findings to the public. I felt it was crucial for people to understand the implications of our forestry practices, which were jeopardizing the very essence of forests. For instance, a plantation is not equivalent to an old-growth forest. I believed people needed to be aware of these distinctions. Ultimately, a well-informed public is more inclined to protect nature.

JP: Your book’s success and widespread reach undoubtedly opened doors for you, which is a positive outcome. However, as you mentioned earlier, it’s also prompted a significant backlash. Interestingly, this backlash seems to extend beyond the environmental sector, permeating various fields, including social justice and corporate realms. We’re witnessing instances where even Wall Street firms, once vocal about diversity and inclusion, are now retracting their stances. This trend appears pervasive across disciplines.

In your case, what forms has this backlash taken, and to what do you attribute it?

SUZANNE: It’s a bit complex to pinpoint the exact impact in my situation, but I see it as part of a larger dialogue. Anything challenging the status quo of the last century, like the practices of forest companies profiting from converting old-growth forests into plantations, tends to stir up resistance. While these companies may prioritize profits over preserving ecosystems, my research highlights the importance of maintaining complex ecological relationships for a thriving ecosystem. This poses a threat to extractive practices.

Interestingly, the opposition I face doesn’t primarily come from industry players like Weyerhaeuser or other major forestry corporations; rather, it’s more prevalent within academic circles, which is an intriguing dynamic.

JP: Do you think there’s a sophisticated network at play here? We’ve seen PR firms, once aligned with the tobacco industry, transition to working for fossil fuel companies. This suggests a powerful infrastructure geared towards protecting vested interests. I’ve come across scientific critiques of your work authored by individuals with ties to mainstream forestry and fossil fuel industries. Considering this, do you believe there’s a deeper connection driving these criticisms, perhaps beyond direct involvement from companies like Weyerhaeuser?

SUZANNE: It’s an important aspect to consider. Funding in universities often involves diverse sources, including industry partnerships. Federal grants increasingly require co-funding, which may come from industries like forestry or fossil fuels. While researchers may not be fully aware, this funding dynamic subtly influences their work. Collaborating with industry funders can impact research directions, albeit unintentionally. This influence has gradually permeated scientific endeavors, particularly in applied sciences, shaping outcomes even without researchers’ explicit recognition.

My book offers an alternative perspective on forests, diverging from mainstream forestry ideologies. Traditional forestry promotes the notion that replacing old forests with managed plantations, utilizing techniques like tree breeding, pesticides, and fertilizers, leads to enhanced productivity. However, I advocate for a different approach, one that prioritizes working with natural systems rather than imposing industrial methodologies. Comparisons between naturally recovering ecosystems and managed ones consistently reveal the superior condition of the former. Embracing this natural approach challenges the decades-long research supporting the industrial model, presenting a significant paradigm shift in forestry practices.

JP: So, it seems to me that what you’re advocating for is a holistic, whole-systems approach rather than a reductionist efficiency model. This appears to be more than just a debate within forestry; it seems like an ideological struggle spanning various fields. It’s almost as if it’s a battle for the soul of our civilization.

SUZANNE: Yeah, managing a complex adaptive system is much more challenging than simplifying it into rows of trees. However, the long-term consequences of the latter approach are far more difficult to address. A holistic systems-level approach involves considering multiple scales of interaction, cross-scale dynamics, energy flows, and socio-ecological principles. It’s a comprehensive approach that integrates bottom-up and top-down perspectives, rather than imposing a predetermined model on the forest.

The industrial model might seem easier, with its clear-cutting and uniform planting, but it often leads to unfavorable outcomes. Working within complex systems, despite their challenges, holds the key to addressing climate change and biodiversity loss. This requires collaboration with those who intimately understand these systems and their interconnections, as well as employing sophisticated strategies that respect both cultures and ecosystems.

JP: From my perspective, embracing a holistic worldview offers a much richer and more diverse way of understanding the world. However, delving into philosophical concepts, metaphors, and ethical considerations has long been frowned upon in the scientific community. Yet, to garner support for holistic science, it’s crucial to engage with the broader public using language that’s more accessible and less metaphorical. Striking the right balance is tricky because veering too far risks facing criticism and backlash. It’s a challenging dilemma to navigate.

SUZANNE: It’s true. The backlash can be unpredictable and come from unexpected places. But despite the challenges, I see it as part of the broader societal change process. The first responders to new ideas often face resistance, but they pave the way for further progress and open up new conversations. I’m encouraged by the shift I’ve witnessed in discussions over the past decade. Now, we recognize forests not just as ecosystems but as ecocultural systems. This marks a significant departure from the mindset prevalent when I began my forestry journey, where culture was rarely considered. So, while some may bear the brunt of initial pushback, it sets the stage for future advancements. If that’s what it takes to move forward, then so be it.

JP: And what about the ramifications for the forestry industry’s products, such as lumber for construction and everyday items like toilet paper? Decades ago, there were significant campaigns led by organizations like the Rainforest Action Network aimed at shaming companies for harvesting old-growth trees for products like toilet paper. Is this area within your purview, or do you collaborate with groups focused on reducing demand for forestry products that contribute to such practices?

SUZANNE: I can only do what I can do, but I support people who focus on that aspect. Canopy Planet, for example, works to reduce demand and promote more sustainable alternatives. So I endorse those efforts, although I’m not directly involved myself.

We need to consider the entire chain of events and identify pressure points. I concentrate my efforts where I can make an impact and support initiatives aimed at reducing demand for wood products. The forest industry has been driven by this demand for profit, leading to the unsustainable exploitation of our forests. We need to shift this demand and reduce consumption.

Changing how we perceive forests is crucial. We’re still depleting old-growth forests for various products like shingles, sawdust, and wood pellets for overseas burning. This practice needs to stop. I’m involved in reevaluating the value of forests. While I’m not an economist, I endorse emerging markets that value forests for their ecosystem services such as water provision, carbon storage, biodiversity preservation, and cultural significance, including the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights. These markets represent a shift towards recognizing the forest’s true worth beyond solely timber products.

JP: One thing we often fail to anticipate in the environmental and social justice movements is the intensity of the reaction from vested interests. It’s shocking. The attacks on you are part of this broader pushback. People get excited about holistic science and rich, fungi-filled soils, then they’re surprised when the mainstream business community doesn’t adopt these practices.

In the environmental movement, we say each victory is temporary and each defeat is permanent. Once they clearcut and destroy a landscape, it’s gone.

I don’t want to be pessimistic. We just have to keep doing what you’re doing: putting out the best research and promoting a richer worldview. We hope the functionality and aesthetics of this approach will eventually triumph because they offer a better model.

SUZANNE: Yeah, and it’s important to remember that these ecosystems are regenerative. When we cut an old growth forest, we’ve destroyed that specific forest, but a new one will grow in its place. It takes a long time to regain what was lost, and the new forest might be different, but we shouldn’t lose hope. It just means more work for us to help these forests rebuild. These ecosystems are resilient and can bounce back in different ways. They’re designed to do that.