Close
Articles

Health and Houseplants

April 24, 2026

Recently I have been completely obsessed with houseplants. For a whole month, I bought a new plant every week. I bought them fertilizer, new pots, anything I could to keep them healthy and growing. When I fill up my water bottle, I know my plants will be drinking more of it than me. But why? Was this craze fueled by a desire for a better oxygenated indoor life? Or to somehow resolve the everyday stress of student life? Turns out, it was probably a combination of both.

Houseplants and The Physical Environment

You may already know that humans inhale O2  and exhale CO2 . You may also know that plants intake CO2 and output O2. This makes humans and plants the perfect pair! It turns out that too much CO2 is harmful for us too! Short term, too high a concentration of CO2 can cause sore throat, coughing, shortness of breath, and dry eyes. Long term, it has even been linked to obesity (Gubb, 2018). Another issue our indoor environments present for us is lower than optimal humidity, which plants can also work to solve! (Gubb, 2018) Low humidity can cause skin and eye irritation, dry sinuses, and increased flu transmission (Gubb, 2018). While it’s hard to say exactly how much plants offset these effects due to the negative impact on plant gas exchange rates from being indoors, we do know that plants help combat these issues. 

Houseplants and Psychology

Believe it or not, houseplants can help support your mental health too! According to one study, people in offices with plants were more attentive to tasks (Yeo, 2020). Another study showed that plants promote creativity, reduce stress levels, and create positive feelings and comfort (Yeo, 2020). These are huge benefits for something as cheap and low maintenance as a house plant.

My Experience With Plants

When it really comes down to it, these are definitely not the real reasons for my houseplant craze, but they are real effects of it. Just having them around (and giving them names), has given me something else to care for in my day to day life, much like a pet. This is something I think a lot of college students, and many others, are missing from their lives. For me personally, my window faces the sunrise. Having plants who are reliant on that sun in the morning has helped me get out of bed to open my blinds for them. They also give me something to focus on: I’ve gotten into the habit of checking on each one before bed every night to see if I notice anything. For them, it’s to make sure I catch things like yellowing leaves that could indicate a need for something early. But for me, it’s become a sort of ritual, or part of my routine before bed. I feel like this has helped me get to sleep faster. For anyone reading this, I would encourage you to try it out yourself. Maybe start with one little plant, something easy like a succulent, and develop your own rituals around it. See how it helps you!

References

Gubb, C., Blanusa, T., Griffiths, A., & Pfrang, C. (2018). Can houseplants improve indoor air quality by removing CO2 and increasing relative humidity? Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 11(10), 1191–1201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-018-0618-9

Yeo, L. B. (2020). Psychological And Physiological Benefits Of Plants In The Indoor Environment: A Mini And In-Depth Review. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 8(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.v8.n1.597

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

Articles, today i learned (til)
Has Plastoline made gasoline renewable and free?
Articles, today i learned (til)
Alex or Alexa: Gender Norms in Technology
Articles
The Ransomware Trust Paradox: How and Why Cybercriminals Want You To Trust Them
Articles
Music & Emotions: A Series (Part 1 – Scary/Fear)

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.