Editor:

Logan Campbell’s column (“Dino study published sans proof,” Nov. 14) misrepresents the PALAIOS paper written by Marjorie Chan and Winston Seiler.

I am the son of Chan, and thus possess a biased point of view. However, I believe that to suggest the study, right or wrong, is an example of pathological science is a mistake. The paper presents clear evidence and legitimate issues, not “ad hoc excuses.”

If Campbell feels doubtful of the paper’s conclusion, so be it. It might very well be wrong. However, to suggest that the study lacked proof or ignored evidence is a misunderstanding of the paper and an insult to Chan and Seiler. It would also seem that if Chan and Seiler were really trying for an explosive discovery, they certainly seem willing to admit they might be wrong. That alone seems to disprove any agenda. If collaborative study shows the track site to be potholes, only then is a retraction to be called for. Until then, let the two sides study the site and refrain from unwarranted accusations.

Mark Middleton,
Freshman, Biology