The Dinosaur Feather

written and examined that just as closely.’
    Professor Freeman still looked utterly bored.
    ‘Your most prominent opponents are,’ Anna continued, ‘Walter Darren from New York University, Chang and Laam from the University of China, T.K. Gordon from the University of Sydney, Belinda Clark from the University of South Africa, and of course, Lars Helland and Erik Tybjerg from the University of Copenhagen.’ She flicked through her papers.
    ‘What your opponents have in common is that they all criticise your fossil analyses and, on that basis, reject your conclusions regarding the origin of birds; criticism which you don’t accept, am I right?’ She didn’t wait for his consent, but carried on.
    ‘For more than fifteen years you have engaged in fossil trench warfare, even though experts agree there’s no longer anything to debate. Let me give an example of your critics’ view on the origin of birds: Belinda Clark is quoted in the September 2006 issue of
Nature
as saying . . .’ Anna picked up a sheet and read out loud:
    ‘
We basically try to ignore him. For dinosaur specialists it’s a done deal. Birds are living dinosaurs
.’ She lowered the sheet.
    ‘Your opponents say they’re ignoring you, but that’s not entirely true, is it? The debate is still ongoing. Why?’
    ‘Well, why do you think?’ Freeman said, giving Anna a neutral look. ‘Because we can’t agree, and why is that? Because they’re wrong. Clark and Laam and Chang, Helland and Tybjerg. They’re wrong.’
    Anna ignored him.
    ‘No one can catch you out in terms of anatomical and fossil arguments. I’ve been through all the material and the order of battle is the same: you interpret the bones differently, so you draw different conclusions. It’s a vicious circle. You’ll never agree.
    ‘I was about to give up.’ She gave Professor Freeman a dark look. ‘I was desperate. You have maintained your position for so many years, so how could I—’
    Freeman glanced at his watch. Anna took a step forwards and looked straight at him.
    ‘So instead I reviewed your premise. And it stinks!’
    ‘Allegations,’ Professor Freeman yawned. ‘Unscientific allegations. From a postgraduate.’ Again he reached for his jacket. Anna handed him a piece of paper, which he automatically accepted.
    ‘Please would you read it and tell me whether you agree?’
    He looked baffled for a moment, then he scanned the page.
    ‘
Basic rules which should be adhered to if work is to be deemed scientific
,’ he read out loud. ‘What’s this?’
    ‘Just read it and tell me whether you agree.’
    Professor Freeman read it. He shrugged.
    ‘It’s elementary,’ he said. ‘It’s the requirements for internal consistency and convincing argumentation for selection and refutation of scientific positions. Is this what they teach postgraduates here at the University of Copenhagen?’
    Anna was aware she was starting to sweat.
    He was walking right into her trap.
    ‘Do you agree with them?’
    ‘Completely.’ Professor Freeman let the paper rest against his thigh and looked at Anna.
    ‘Then please could you tell me why you, in your argumentation on feathers, to name one example, are guilty of a severe case of inconsistency, which you’ve just agreed mustn’t happen if a position is to be deemed scientific?’
    Silence.
    Then Freeman said, ‘What sort of nonsense is this?’
    ‘Your nonsense, Professor Freeman.’ Anna flicked through her papers. ‘In 2000, Chang and Laam described
Sinosauropteryx
as having well-preserved, feather-like skin structures. Since then dinosaurs with more or less distinct, feather-like structure have literally poured out of the ground, such as
Tyrannosaurus Rex
found in 2005. Your opponents argue convincingly for the structure being homologous with feathers and that consequently a feather isn’t a diagnostic feature reserved for birds, but characteristic of a wider group of predatory dinosaurs,
including
birds. One of the most important conclusions drawn from this is that feathers evolved
before
flight.’ Anna looked briefly at Freeman.
    ‘You obviously disagree profoundly with this statement and in 1985, in 1992, in 1995, three times in 1997, again in1999 and six times between 2001 and 2004, you write, in a range of scientific journals, that the evolution of feathers is inextricably linked with the evolution of flight and that it wasn’t until later that it served to insulate the animal. Is that correct?’
    Freeman