New DNA Evidence May Prove What the Loch Ness Monster Really Is

Ava Chiang

9/9/19

AP Bio Even / C

Current Event #1

Conversation, Jason Gilchrist/The. “New DNA Evidence May Prove What the Loch Ness Monster Really Is.” Popular Science, Popular Science, 6 Sept. 2019, www.popsci.com/loch-ness-monster-dna-mystery/.

For my current review I decided to read an article by Jason Gilchrist called “New DNA Evidence May Prove What the Loch Ness Monster Really Is.” In the article, Gilchrist claims that, according to a new scientific survey, the Loch Ness Monster (“Nessie”) is most likely a giant eel and not “not an aquatic reptile left over from the Jurassic era or a circus elephant that got in the water to bathe with her trunk aloft.” Reports of the Loch Ness Monster originated in 565 AD Scotland on the River Ness by an Irish missionary; the myth has been kept alive in Modern times through repeated sightings, for example, a grainy photo taken in 1934 by Colonel Robert Wilson. Until now, sightings by monster hunters and tourists were all the evidence that scientists had to use in their investigation. However, this provides unreliable evidence because it could be the result of a psychological situation called “expectant attention,” which is when people who expect or want to see something are more likely to misinterpret visual cues as the thing that they expect or want to.” But a new technique known as e- DNA, gathering environmental DNA, allows scientists to gather a genetic sample of all organisms that live within the Loch Ness. E-DNA is “genetic material that's present in the cells of organisms and shed into their surrounding environment,” this means scientists can identify all living organisms “in a habitat without them having to observe or capture them.” The scientists were based in Drumnadrochit, a village on the western shore of Loch Ness, where they announced their findings. The “team took well over 200 one-liter samples of water from throughout the loch—including the surface and deep water—and compared them with 36 samples from five ‘monster-free’ lochs nearby” this study resulted in “over 500 million DNA sequences and 3,000 species.” After comparing the DNA samples with popular possibilities of the true identity of Nessie, such as large fish (shark, catfish, sturgeon) or a plesiosaur, scientists believe that the “most likely candidate for Nessie that has surfaced in media reporting of the research is a giant eel.” Scientists are hesitant to confirm that this is the truth to the popular Scottish myth, but eel DNA was found all over the Loch Ness, so the possibility cannot be ruled out easily. 

This article is relevant to society because the Loch Ness Monster is an important source of income to the local community since tourists flood to the lake in hopes of seeing Nessie. In addition the Nessie is an important part of Scottish mythology and history, and is an important part of their cultural identity. In August 2018, a  YouGov poll discovered that “24 percent of Scots believe that Nessie exists” including Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister for Scotland. The existence of Nessie becomes a topic that is more important than scientific experiment, if scientists conclude that there is no possibility of a Loch Ness monster existing then it is taking away a vital part of the Scottish community. In addition, it is against the scientific spirit to say with total confidence that there is no Nessie. 

Gilchrist wrote an interesting and thorough article that included both science and history, however the organization of the articles subtopics was all over the place. The paragraphs jumped from scientific evidence collected from the study and quotes from leading scientists to historical information about the Nessie. But despite the lack of organization, the article used a lot of statistics and data, as well as visuals of past Nessie sightings to support the author’s argument. This allowed readers to focus on the article and citing evidence makes the article more trustworthy to readers. A possible improvement would be to organize the article and go from historical sightings to modern “monster hunters” and end with this experiment. Also, it would've been helpful if Gilchrist included other studies on the Loch Ness Monster based in biology techniques and used the scientific method. This would’ve really highlighted how this study differed from all the past ones.