T. rex tissue controversy

AtomicHorror

Some findings in T. rex bones cast doubt on whether Schweitzer et al. actually managed to isolate soft tissue from that species:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14427-t-rex-tissue-may-just-be-bacterial-scum.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news2_head_dn14427

This group claims that the soft tissue is merely the remains of a bacterial biofilm. Counter to that though, one of the proteins that Schweitzer's group translated from the genetic material obtained was a form of collagen, not likely to be a bacterial gene!

Galvasean

So wait, they found bacterial biofilm on a completely different specimen and use it as a springboard to say Schweitzer's findings were not what she said they were? Hmm, I think a bit of cross examination is in order.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

So wait, they found bacterial biofilm on a completely different specimen and use it as a springboard to say Schweitzer's findings were not what she said they were? Hmm, I think a bit of cross examination is in order.

Agreed! The main concern though seems to be that they made their isolations from very much comparable samples and weren't able to reproduce Schweitzer's results despite many samples. It's quite possible that Schweitzer's samples just represented a lucky isolation... contamination seems unlikely.

Galvasean

Makes you wonder why they didn't just contact Schweitzer first and collaborate their research rather than run to the presses. I fear palaeontology is starting to get ruined by celebrity and tabloidism.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

Makes you wonder why they didn't just contact Schweitzer first and collaborate their research rather than run to the presses. I fear palaeontology is starting to get ruined by celebrity and tabloidism.

That would fly in the face of scientific philosophy somewhat. Your results don't mean quite so much until someone can independently reproduce them.