Nessie Tourism Board Quietly Asks Researchers to Stop Finding Explanations

An internal memo from the Loch Ness Regional Tourism Authority, obtained by this publication, requests that scientific researchers operating in and around Loch Ness 'exercise discretion in the publication of findings that may prematurely resolve the mystery.' The memo, sent to the heads of three universities currently conducting studies at the loch, follows a year in which several high-profile studies produced explanations for phenomena previously attributed to the Loch Ness Monster, resulting in what the Tourism Authority describes as 'a measurable decline in visitor enthusiasm.' 'We are not asking anyone to fabricate evidence,' the memo reads. 'We are simply requesting that researchers maintain appropriate ambiguity in their public statements and avoid definitive language that undermines the visitor experience.' Specifically, the memo requests that researchers replace phrases like 'the phenomenon is definitively explained by' with 'one possible explanation is,' and that any press releases include the sentence 'Further research is needed to fully understand the mysteries of Loch Ness.' 'Last year, a team from Edinburgh published a paper proving that 74 percent of reported sightings were boat wakes,' said Tourism Authority spokesperson Fiona Revenue. 'Hotel bookings dropped 12 percent the following quarter. We can't have that.' The memo has been criticized by the scientific community. 'They're asking us to be strategically vague so people keep buying souvenir Nessie plushies,' said one researcher who requested anonymity. 'And the frustrating thing is, their argument is economically sound.' Loch Ness tourism generates an estimated 60 million pounds annually. The monster, or the possibility of the monster, accounts for what economists estimate is 'most of the reason anyone goes to a cold, dark lake in Scotland.' The Tourism Authority has since retracted the memo, calling it 'poorly worded.' A revised version asks researchers to 'consider the broader community impact of their work,' which researchers noted 'says the same thing more politely.'