The following piece is a satire. All content and material cited in this satire is fiction and has been dramatized for authorial effect. 

MOLE-TING, a term describing a phenomenon which was, until recently, dismissed as a giant hoax the world over, has finally gained acceptance in the scientific community. According to Dr. Kevin Waldorf, a researcher at George Moleington University outside of Washington, D.C., the study was conducted by an experienced team of seven post-graduate biologists from universities across the United States and Canada who opted to remain anonymous to protect their identities from the potential fallout of their findings.

And fallout there has been! Within mere hours of the team publishing their results in the journal “The Scientific A-mole-ican” this past Monday, German researcher Otto Stalter, himself a professor of biology, issued a harsh statement asserting that “in the past few years we have seen countless butcheries of the high ideals of science. The most glaring example of this has been the recent study ‘Physiology and Processes of Molting in Talpid Mammals,’ which has sought to disprove one of the most defining characteristics of mammals, that being, no mammalian organism can molt. We simply do not have the appropriate biology to do so.” He continued for several pages in his statement, elaborating on his hatred for Mole Day and Pi Day for what he considers to be “frivolous and debasing in nature.”

In response to Dr. Stalter’s lambasting criticism, Dr. Waldorf said to us in an interview that “of course it’s preposterous. Mammals should not be able to molt. However, Dr. Stalter has crossed a line with his attack on Mole Day and Pi Day. These are sacred traditions that inspire a love in today’s students for chemistry and mathematics.”

When asked to return to the subject of the study, Dr. Waldorf, the department professor at George Moleington who had supervised the study, commented on the experimental design. “Our thorough research,” he asserted, “has concluded that mole-ting is the only sane explanation for what we have observed in our studies. In our mole habitat we discovered what appeared to be the carcasses of deceased moles. However, further investigation showed that these purported bodies were simply moleskin, literally. Eventually we were able to capture a mole starting to show signs of beginning the process and watched as it unfolded.”

Dr. Waldorf made it clear to us that mole-ting should not be confused with the molting observed in owls or snakes’ shedding of their skin. Rather than facilitating the growth of the creature, it provides a way for the animal to replenish essential immune system cells that play a vital role in the body. These “K-cells” are responsible for defending against all sorts of soil-based microorganisms, but cannot be replenished by the epidermal membrane or transported thither by the bloodstream. As a result, every few months or so, the mole has to entirely shed the membrane and replace it with a new one.

Roughly forty-eight hours before the molt, the mole enters into a feeding frenzy, snapping up anything and everything it possibly can for the next thirty-six hours. Next the mole becomes almost comatose, only responding to the most painful of stimuli. The researchers posited in the study that at this point the mole is preparing the inner layers of the skin to replace the outermost one, although further research will be needed to confirm or refute this. After roughly twelve hours in this state, the mole begins to move again, attempting to worm its way out of the old skin. The process takes about three hours, after which the mole has to eat a meal within mere minutes lest it risk starvation. It is a small wonder, then, that so few intact empty adult-sized epidermises are found, according to the researchers; most moles do not survive the mole-ting process after reaching a certain age, at which point they are too sluggish to exit their former skins in time to feed.

Dr. Waldorf has expressed to the Forest Scout his confidence in the shocking and admittedly controversial findings of the team. “Modern science depends entirely on the credibility of the researcher. I am one-hundred-percent certain that the brilliant scholars who composed the team upheld these high ideals in their study,” he articulated. “Furthermore,” he continued, “this research, in upending previous conceptions and sentiments, will hopefully lay the framework for a society based less on assumptions and more on the virtues of empirical evidence.”