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 (152)
+ View All Comments
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
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
You cannot claim to be a Christian and support evolution to the extent that the earth was around for millions of years. I'm with the creationists on this one. God preserved that tissue for us to find. Science doesn't make sense without God. The "theory" of evolution is just that. If I took a steralized test tube and I put all the things for a single cell to live in it, it would live, but if I took a needle and poked a hole in it and let all the contents leak out, the cell would die, and no matter what you do, you would not be able to put "Humpty Dumpty" back together again. Oh God is real alright. Some people refuse to believe because they say science cannot explain God. Well duh, that's the whole point. Science was established simply to explain natural phenoma, there is no reeason to assume science can explain supernatural phenomena.
Posted by Zach on December 2,2012 | 02:00 PM
Grow up people - I still can not believe that on "scientist" can fool so many. We are talking about 75 millions of years. In one million years everything becomes rock. And of course she could not extract the DNA from it - that would reveal the truth and we want to believe in "WOW!!!", don't we?. Pathetic
Posted by Me on November 19,2012 | 06:19 PM
I commend the lady for her immaculate work of unearthing the hidden. She has a great passion and deserves immense credit. I have for quite some time now been interested in these Monstrous creatures. I particularly like movies on them. I have watched The Skull Island,Journey to the Island which is based on a book by V-someone, all which features these animals. How I enjoy seeing them! Good job!
Posted by Nkurunziza on October 30,2012 | 09:22 AM
I'm sure Smithsonian won't even publish this but... This article is highly biased and false. Why don't they publish an article that tells everyone the truth for once. Scientists can't prove any theories of the age of the Earth and that they are based off of unproven methods. Carbon dating itself could not be proven unless one was able to observe the hypothesis for the millions of years to authenticate the process. Otherwise it is an educated guess based off of short term tests and then a mathematical formula to "guess" at the age of objects. Nobody hijacked her work because in essence her work is probably hijacking the real truth that all of you will never find out in your lifetime.
Posted by Matt on October 28,2012 | 10:04 PM
Great work. Dr. Schweitzer's find is that of a true scientist--not deterred from doing something that seems crazy. I, a PhD biochemist and MD, find the God of the Big Bang so much more awe-inspiring than one who made clay models of everything in six days (of what length?) and, admittedly awesomely enough, breathed life into them. I can just imagine him flicking one switch and spending the next 14 billion years watching what he started--so transcendent! Why can't creationists see the beauty of this?
Posted by Margaret Shirley on October 28,2012 | 03:39 PM
+ View All Comments