Dinosaur Shocker
Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the beasts that once ruled the earth
- By Helen Fields
- Smithsonian magazine, May 2006, Subscribe
Neatly dressed in blue Capri pants and a sleeveless top, long hair flowing over her bare shoulders, Mary Schweitzer sits at a microscope in a dim lab, her face lit only by a glowing computer screen showing a network of thin, branching vessels. That’s right, blood vessels. From a dinosaur. “Ho-ho-ho, I am excite-e-e-e-d,” she chuckles. “I am, like, really excited.”
After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
It may be that Schweitzer’s unorthodox approach to paleontology can be traced to her roundabout career path. Growing up in Helena, Montana, she went through a phase when, like many kids, she was fascinated by dinosaurs. In fact, at age 5 she announced she was going to be a paleontologist. But first she got a college degree in communicative disorders, married, had three children and briefly taught remedial biology to high schoolers. In 1989, a dozen years after she graduated from college, she sat in on a class at Montana State University taught by paleontologist Jack Horner, of the Museum of the Rockies, now an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution. The lectures reignited her passion for dinosaurs. Soon after, she talked her way into a volunteer position in Horner’s lab and began to pursue a doctorate in paleontology.
She initially thought she would study how the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones differs depending on how much the animal weighs. But then came the incident with the red spots.
In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”
Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”
What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (158)
+ View All Comments
Great feature, absolutely fascinating. The real shock though is reading the comments, and the alarming views of creationists.
Posted by Peter Davis on May 5,2013 | 05:43 PM
Decay is an observable process TODAY and if we don't understand it by now we certainly don't know anything about the "process" of evolution.(I put it in quotes because if it's unguided and random then you can't call it a process.)
Posted by Andrew on April 17,2013 | 08:02 PM
Finally in a fossilized dinosaur you found red blood cells that was thought to not have been able to preserve for 65 million years yet there are mummies or fossilized people in Egypt that they still cannot get cells or DNA from the bones to see if they can trace their line, why is this? It should be more easily accessed in mummies if it is found in fossilized dinosaur bones. I've always been interested in this type of information just knew how to follow it in the field. Please can I have an answer or help me find a way to answer it myself by getting me in-touch with those that could help me!
Posted by Debra Riley on April 8,2013 | 02:11 AM
it's funny searching this article for "million" and seeing how many time they continually try to emphasis it's millions of years old. I sense panic in the article. They dated the rock around the bones to be millions of years? Give me a break, they date rock by fossils, fossils by rock, and you have trees growing through many layers of 'millions of years' fossilized. When Mt. Saint Hellen's blew, trees were burried in many layers of dirt rapidly, vs. millions of years of sediment piling up.
Posted by Trevor Fayas on March 14,2013 | 02:34 PM
I have this red skinned toe with a long nail almost looks like Satan's finger lol I have both segments it's about a foot long both combined and the skins still in tact it was originally in a stone that was reddish brown.and shaped like a flask no joke curiosity got the best of my husband who then chipped piece by piece at it until he came to this discovery first flask shaped piece a segment to a toe of a dinosaur I assume then we worked on second flask like rock and discovered the other piece island what it is but I know it's not human and it's in perfect condition I do know it's petrified and I was wanting information on who to contact about these amazing discoveries
Posted by heather on February 22,2013 | 11:20 PM
Where can I get the paper about the soft tissue found in the Argentina theropod and the other tyrannosaur?
Posted by Randomosaur on February 17,2013 | 10:18 PM
It fascinates me that when good evidence shows that maybe scientists have gotten it wrong, it is explained away. They even want to believe that soft tissue takes billions of years to actually decay! There was no mention of the dinosaurs that have been recently carbon 14 tested and shown to be less than 50,000 years old. I found it humorous that Helen Fields had to continually "remind" us how old this dinosaur was! Why can't dinosaurs have lived 50,000 years ago? Why are scientists so scared of that being possible? It still doesn't prove creation. (I also thought it was funny how the writer said creationists only think the earth is a "few thousand" years old. She obviously doesn't know what they think). This whole article came across as being very biased and deceptive. Not impressed.
Posted by Anne on February 9,2013 | 09:54 PM
Instead of trying to make this fit with the Bible or Evolution, just welcome the steady and the information. People have to perpetually argue if it should fall on the evolution side or the bible side. It it what it is. Data presented to the public.
Posted by on February 9,2013 | 03:35 PM
Young Earth creationists didn't hijack the research. The interpreted it correctly. The young earth model much more likely predicts soft tissue preservation than the evolution model.
Posted by Tom Breuner on February 1,2013 | 11:53 AM
This Montana discovery very much proves that dinosaurs have not been extinct for 'nearly' as long as many claim. Now, is our government going to find a way to cover this up too, with the help of their 'atheist' scientists? This would not be the first time. This of course would be to support their belief in evolution, a 'THEORY' that is being pushed down peoples throats as fact and at the same time cleverly undermining God's place in the scheme of things. 1 John 5:19, Rev.12:12, 2 Corinthians 4:3,4 2 Thessal. 2:9-11. I do appreciate Schweitzer's willingness to make all this known. I hope that she gets the support that she should get, for the sake of all who love the 'truth' from science.
Posted by eydie barrientos on January 25,2013 | 09:01 PM
The comment about how old the earth is according to some 'creationists' misrepresents what many people that put faith in the Bible KNOW: that the book of Genesis simply does NOT support the idea that the earth has only been around for a few thousand years. Through careful study one will find that each creative day was at least 7 thousand years long. I am tired of people who are too lazy to read and just don't care enough about the Bible and so inevitably 'misrepresent' it. Let's get it straight. God and his word are not against 'science'. It is science against the Bible and God. Because 'most' scientist make science their God to replace the real God, the Creator with whom they would also have to answer for their conscience or lack of one. Where there is no God there are no rules and no 'truth'.
Posted by eydie barrientos on January 25,2013 | 08:30 PM
I guess it takes a 875 Quadzillion years for the blood cells to decompse in a dinasaur. yeah that's it. This actually proves the earth is older. Maybe into the Bentillian quaddrouplezillion years. It's their story and they are sticking to it up until God returns and well it's too late.
Posted by Charles on December 18,2012 | 10:44 AM
Jack Horner “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” or 'Mary honey, everyone knows the world is flat, seeing those ship masts rising up on the horizon can't be right. Do you hear me dear? Would you like to continue your research? Ok, now that we see 'I to I' you are ready to continue.' Welcome to Scientism, where the high priest tells you what to believe and how to be absolved of your sin. Frankly I'm surprised that Schweitzer is still alive let alone still working for the Man. There is no desire to go where the evidence leads, just a ferocious holding to the template at all costs. Enter divergent evolution, Oort clouds, polystrate anomolies, living fossils, a bazillion helpful mutations, et al.
Posted by John S on December 18,2012 | 09:14 AM
maybe it's not as old as they think it is. How can a tree grow up through two different seams of coal that took millions and millions of years to form. To funny. Science would never admit they coud be wrong ?
Posted by flatpicker on December 5,2012 | 11:47 AM
+ View All Comments