Scientists to Hunt for Loch Ness Monster DNA

A new project aims to look for foreign, or unknown, DNA sequences that could possibly have been shed by this beast. However, one scientist not involved in the project suggests such a finding would be like spotting a pink unicorn.

...

Loch Ness is probably teeming with DNA shed from the creatures that call it home. Animals drop DNA into the environment all the time in the form of skin, urine and feces. Scientists call this genetic information environmental DNA, and they can find it in the air, soil, ice and water, according to the project's website.

An international group of researchers will soon collect this environmental DNA for the first time in Loch Ness. They will take around 300 samples of water from three different depths. They will then extract DNA fragments from the water, sequence the fragments and compare them to databases of animal DNA that are already known to see if there are any matches — or not.

Source: Scientists to Hunt for Loch Ness Monster DNA

SO, they are going to collect dirt, water, etc... and attempt to find DNA in these samples. Identify the DNA (if any is there) throw out DNA of known animals, and what is left "might" be Nessie.

Wow, talk about pie in the sky goals.

I say good luck to them. However, I don't expect much from this research.

that's how to detect the monster....no pet of ours in the loch.....

sift the pond scum see what we get

From the article:

"I think we will find lots that is news, but it is unlikely we will find anything new that explains the monster myth," said project leader Neil Gemmell, a professor at the University of Otago in New Zealand who hopes this project will yield new species. For example, he said, a recent study in a nearby loch found four new species of brown trout. "If this were solely a monster hunt, I wouldn't be doing it," he added.

I think the "Loch Ness Monster" angle is just to heighten public awareness of the project (or to get more funding). The real purpose seems to be map all of the different species living there.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I was going to say the same thing. This method has been used many times before to find out what all lives in certain areas. It’s just now becoming monetarily feasible to become a much more popular method. Many new species have been identified in the last few years and no doubt, they will find some new amazing examples in the locke.

a reply to: Krakatoa

and what is left "might" be Nessie.

Not Nessie but a Nessie , over the years their must have been many Nessies so if Nessie exists the DNA of one of them may still be there at the bottom of the Loch , or perhaps it's one of Aleister Crowley's beasties still lurking the waters in which case they'll find no trace.

The whole concept of a group of Living pliosaur being in the lake is beyond stupid .
first a pliosaur ( any version was not a small animal they breath air .
second to have a viable gen pool you need minim of 5000 and even that will just keep them hanging on .
So tell just were do you think over 5000 would be hanging out in a lake even if it was teh greats lake of all ?

a reply to: Krakatoa

This seems like a tall order. There's SO MUCH to be found in one little pond, let alone the entirety of Loch Ness. The lab work would take forever and would be a huge waste of time.

Underwater cameras of some kind would be a better idea.

originally posted by: midnightstar
The whole concept of a group of Living pliosaur being in the lake is beyond stupid .
first a pliosaur ( any version was not a small animal they breath air .
second to have a viable gen pool you need minim of 5000 and even that will just keep them hanging on .
So tell just were do you think over 5000 would be hanging out in a lake even if it was teh greats lake of all ?

I wouldn’t say beyond stupid, and the 5000 number (not sure where you got that one) for just the lake alone is drastically high. There are several endangered species that have had small numbers for quite some time that we know about.

One other tidbit, take sharks for example: they aren’t really sure how long a shark can live in the wild. If it’s anything like other animals it could be a hundred years or more (not saying it is that long, but for science sake let’s say it could be). So applying the same age logic to Nessie, and if they lay eggs or have multiple young at once, one generation alone could live for a century.

Just saying, you know, possibilities.