THE ONE ABOUT SEA MONSTERS
Loch-ed and loaded.
This week is all about a very simple question: Did the Loch Ness Monster exist?1
According to some recent science headlines, the idea is “plausible.” And because headlines rule everything on the internet (I’m working on this theory but it seems to be true for me on this Sunday morning pre-coffee), the completely insane idea that Nessie might still be swimming in a Scottish lake was trending on Twitter for… oh, some 48 hours a week or so ago???!?!
How the hell did we get here?
Here’s what happened.
I came across this story because of Twitter’s “What’s Happening” bar2 — and I came across it twice, in two days, from two different publications. The Telegraph had this story first, on July 26:
A day later, it was Noted Science Publication3 LADbible that picked up on it, crafting their own take on the headline (which isn’t much different but throw in Incredible Discovery for some mystery):
You’re definitely clicking on those, aren’t you? I mean… look at that illustrated image the Telegraph ran with! Incredible!! Even those with just a passing interest in Nessie are going to click on that.
So… how did the existence of the Loch Ness Monster become plausible then?
It all comes back to a press release.
Taking a Bath
On July 26, a press release written by the University of Bath in the UK dropped online. It was headlined:
Plesiosaur fossils found in the Sahara suggest they weren’t just marine animals
In a nutshell, scientists at the University of Bath found some fossils in Morocco that indicate plesiosaurs, a type of long-necked marine dinosaur, may not have just lived in the open ocean, but freshwater lakes.
Loch Ness is a freshwater lake. Ergo, why wouldn’t it contain a plesiosaur — the very creature that has been the subject of investigations for centuries.
It seems The Telegraph in the UK picked up on this press release first (or close to first) and focused in on one specific line, which is featured in the release’s concluding paragraph:
But what does this all mean for the Loch Ness Monster? On one level, it’s plausible.
It’s this one sentence that launched 1,000 Cryptid Chasers.
In fact, the story gathered so much steam that, eventually, the New York Times got in on the Nessie headlines, too, publishing this piece on Aug. 4 titled
And this ALL COMES FROM ONE LINE! The “plausible” line! That needs some intense interrogation. In fact, it feels kind of irresponsible for the University of Bath press office to pull this out of the scientific paper4 which features nothing of the sort.
The University even links to a very informative blog post by Nick Longrich, who authored the study, at his own website. You will note it does not make mention of the Loch Ness monster once because the connection is nonsensical. Why?
Currently, the fossil record shows pretty well that plesiosaurs died out 66 million years ago thanks to a stupid rock that killed all the dinosaurs.
Loch Ness didn’t form all that long ago — glaciers carved out a valley some 10,000 years ago … just a few dozen million years after that stupid rock hit the Earth.
In 2019, a team of scientists revealed results from an environmental DNA study of Loch Ness. Their study sampled water across the Loch and found a bunch of different creature DNA floating about the place. Eels, yep, some frogs and toads. Other amphibians. Of course, tons of fish. But no reptile DNA.
That last point is interesting — because the research was advertised to the press and public in the exact same manner. The headlines, then, were that there was a “plausible theory” for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. However, that theory, based on studies in the lake. The researchers hypothesized that perhaps the “monster” was a giant eel (or perhaps a bundle of eels, all working together). And here was see “plausible” pop up again… except, this “plausible” is really bloody stretching the definition of plausible.
Our lesson? This is a really good example of how press releases from universities about new research can end up affecting the overarching narrative of a science story — especially a popular science story — and how it’s conveyed to the public.
It’s hard to really know if this is good or bad, though. It would have improved the metrics of Longrich’s paper, I’m sure. Not to shit on the team’s great work, but I doubt the paper itself would find much of an audience… so, maybe people learn a little bit more about plesiosaurs and fossils when we tie it to the Nessie myth? Maybe it continues to drive tourists to the area or gets people interested in paleontology and the life cycle of huge marine dinosaurs?
On the other hand, it feels pretty damn deceptive. And it has resulted in a bastardization of the research performed by Longrich and his team. Instead of focusing on the science, we’re focused on something else entirely — and, ultimately, that tends to leave a bad taste in a reader’s mouth. Twitter can also do better here, but that’s a story for another time (like next week!)
Now, can someone find Bigfoot fossils, please?
Oh, before you go! If you’re in Australia, it looks like the story in last week’s newsletter about “structured water” may feature on ABC’s Media Watch on Monday night. That’s pretty cool!
This week’s header image is made by the Midjourney AI. My prompt was “loch ness monster wearing a tiny propeller hat, baroque style”… Interesting!
I have a lot of thoughts about the What’s Happening sidebar and how it is Really Bad, particularly for science journalists and communicators. More on that next week.
At No Breakthroughs, we keep a list of Noted Science Publications, FYI.
That paper is titled “Plesiosaurs from the fluvial Kem Kem Group (mid-Cretaceous) of eastern Morocco and a review of non-marine plesiosaurs”