What Common Measure does
In short: Common Measure makes eDNA results from different laboratories and years comparable. We never produce or interpret results; we record exactly how they were produced.
01 · SCOPE
One bottleneck of four
Environmental DNA is commonly described as being held back by four things: incomplete reference databases, inconsistent quality control, the inability to reliably convert genetic signal into abundance, and a strong geographic bias toward well-sampled parts of Europe and North America.
Common Measure addresses one of them.
Incomplete reference databases
A collection and sequencing problem. Somebody has to find, voucher and sequence the organism before any system can name it. Not ours.
Inconsistent quality control and reporting
This is the one we work on. Different pipelines, reference versions and thresholds producing results that cannot be compared. It is a records and governance problem rather than a laboratory one.
Converting signal to abundance
A shedding-rate and calibration problem requiring experimental work in tanks and field systems. Not ours.
Geographic bias
A fieldwork and funding problem. The gaps exist because nobody has been there yet, and no software changes that.
We would rather be useful on one of these than vague about all four.
02 · THE EVIDENCE
The evidence
…eDNA method reliability is not the problem. Rather, we suggest that the interface between results and management needs attention since there are few tools for integrating uncertainty into decision-making.
The authors suggested eDNA methods may be mature enough to meet legal standards for admissibility in most courts.
0.96
The probability that one filter membrane (MCE) recovered more than 10% more target DNA than another (PES), for one species at one river site.
Augustine et al. 2026, Environmental DNA. doi:10.1002/edn3.7034731 vs 33
Mean vertebrate taxa (mostly fish) from ten PCR replicates of one field sample, versus one PCR replicate from each of ten field samples, at one intertidal site. No significant difference. The count alone does not show which design produced it.
Schulte et al. 2026, PLOS One (Jonah Ventures). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0350111These figures come from aquatic studies, because that is where the measurement work has been done. Whether the same magnitudes hold for soil, sediment and air has not been measured.
This is one of four widely recognized bottlenecks in environmental DNA, and the only one we work on.
03 · THE REFERENCE LAYER
A permanent identity for every sequence
Species names are an unstable layer sitting on top of stable observations. A name is a hypothesis that gets revised; a sequence is an observation that does not.
If your system of record is names, every taxonomic revision silently rewrites your history, and you cannot tell afterwards whether a change in your data reflects the ecosystem or the nomenclature. If your system of record is a persistent identifier, with names attached as versioned annotations, a revision becomes a metadata update and the underlying detections stay comparable.
What we return with every detection
The identifier, the current name and the taxonomy version it came from, plus a flag when the identifier sits inside a known discordant complex, cases where one accepted species name contains several genetically distinct lineages.
A species name is the best answer available on the day. We record which day, and flag the cases where the field has not yet settled what the name means.
04 · THE AUDIT TRAIL
A detection isn't evidence until you can show your work
The assurance record captures, permanently and immutably:
- Molecule type and marker — DNA or RNA, and which genetic region
- Collection timestamp, and time elapsed before preservation
- Filter membrane type and pore size, and preservation method
- Replicate structure — technical, field and temporal replicates, kept distinct
- Which assays were run on which samples
- Control results — field blanks, extraction controls, no-template controls
- Detection and quantification thresholds applied
- Pipeline version and reference database version
The assurance record requires the structure of replication rather than a count, because the same species count can come from very different sampling designs (see the evidence above).
05 · COVERAGE
One reference frame. Metabarcoding first.
Environmental DNA is not one method. A monitoring program routinely runs several at once, on the same sites and sometimes the same samples. Reconciling them is the long-term work, and it is why the reference layer is designed to be method-agnostic from the start.
At launch, Common Measure covers DNA metabarcoding. That is a deliberate choice rather than a limitation we are hiding: metabarcoding is where the comparability problem is worst, because the species list depends on a pipeline, a reference database and a clustering threshold that every laboratory chooses differently. It is the hardest case, and solving it first is the right order.
| Method | Question it answers | Where it dominates | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Metabarcoding | What is here? | Community surveys, soil biodiversity, bioassessment, marine baselines | Supported at launch |
| Targeted qPCR and dPCR | Is this one species here, and how much? | Invasive species programs, listed species, biosecurity | Roadmap |
| Hybridization capture | What is here, at depth, with less amplification bias? | Emerging bioassessment and soil fauna work | Roadmap |
| Environmental RNA | What is alive and active right now? | Confirmation, treatment verification, activity monitoring | Roadmap |
We are explicit about this because targeted qPCR carries most United States invasive species monitoring, and quantitative eDNA for stock assessment depends on it entirely. Extending the reference layer to targeted assays is the most requested thing on our roadmap and the one we most want to get right. If that is the work you need, tell us — it moves our priorities.
Definitions for all four are in the glossary →06 · STANDING ON EXISTING WORK
We implement standards. We do not replace them.
Environmental DNA is being standardized, and not by us. ISO 17805:2026 specifies how water samples should be collected, filtered and preserved. A further ISO standard covering extraction from filters is in development. In Canada, CSA W214:21, Environmental DNA (eDNA) reporting requirements and terminology, is a published National Standard of Canada. National and agency best-practice guidance exists in the United States, Canada, Australia and across Europe.
This is how it should work. Standards bodies convene, deliberate and publish. That process is slow, thorough and legitimate, and it is not something a company should try to replicate.
What Common Measure does instead
Three things, none of which are covered by any published standard today:
Implements them
Where a published standard specifies how something should be recorded, we adopt its terminology and its field definitions rather than inventing parallel ones. Our assurance record cites ISO 17805 as the normative reference for collection and preservation.
Extends past where they stop
Published standards currently end at the laboratory door. Persistent identity for a sequence, reference database version control, and measured agreement between laboratories are not yet specified anywhere. That is the gap.
Operates the thing
A standard is a document. Somebody has to run the infrastructure that applies it to real data, at volume, in a form regulators can consume. Writing and operating are different jobs.
Every accounting standard has auditors. Every measurement standard has calibration laboratories. The document and the operator are not the same thing, and they should not be the same organization.
07 · WHERE WE START
We begin at the sequence file
Common Measure takes raw sequence data — FASTQ files — and everything that must travel with it. We do not collect samples, operate field equipment, or run a laboratory, and the workflow does not begin until sequencing is finished.
That means the collection and laboratory metadata in the assurance record is declared by whoever submits the data, not observed by us. We validate that it is present, internally consistent and correctly formatted. We cannot validate that it is true, and we do not claim to.
- 01
Before us — you
Sampling, filtration, preservation, extraction, sequencing. Plus the record of how it was done: collection time, filter type, preservation method, controls, replicate structure.
- 02
Us
FASTQ in. Taxonomic assignment against versioned reference databases, a persistent identifier for every sequence, and a locked assurance record combining your declared metadata with our analysis provenance.
- 03
After us — you again
Results in a form that can be compared with anyone else's, published to a repository, or filed with a permit.
A record is only as good as what was declared into it. We make declaration structured, permanent and checkable. We do not make it honest. That part is yours.
08 · WHO IT IS FOR
Who it is for, in full
| Category | What they get | What they would pay for |
|---|---|---|
| Laboratories and core facilities | Analysis pipeline and client portal, run as a service | Sample processing, instead of maintaining their own pipeline |
| Environmental consultancies | Results that carry their own provenance into a permit file | Signed assurance records, billable to the client |
| Offshore energy and marine infrastructure | One reference frame across vendors and years | Workspaces and assurance records spanning a multi-decade obligation |
| Mining, forestry and land management | Soil biodiversity measured the same way across sites and years | Processing that keeps every survey on one reference |
| Water utilities and hydropower | Source, intake and relicensing evidence in one format | Assurance records for relicensing and source-protection files |
| Federal, state and tribal agencies | Standardized, sovereignty-aware data management | Dedicated US-hosted instances (from 2027) |
| Agriculture and supply chain | Soil biodiversity measured consistently across suppliers | Processing across suppliers to one reference |
| Software and data platforms | Inputs they can trust without re-checking every lab | Processing at volume; the specification and validator stay free |
09 · THE COMMITMENTS
What we will never do
Neutrality only means something if it is constrained. These five are structural rules rather than preferences, and they are written into how the company is governed. They exist so that a laboratory sending us data never has to wonder what we might do with it later.
Never run a sample
No wet laboratory, ever. We are not qualified to run one and we have no intention of learning. But more importantly, the day we process a sample we become a competitor to the people whose data we are asking for.
Never sell interpretation
No consulting, no ecological assessment. That competes with our channel.
Why this one matters most →Never hold equity in a laboratory
A structural rule.
Never charge for the specification
Free foreverThe method, the specification and the lookup stay open permanently.
Never route or rank a laboratory
No marketplace, no referrals, no preferred provider list, no directory ordered by anything other than the alphabet. Choosing a laboratory is the customer's decision and steering it would make us a competitor to every laboratory we serve.
Why this is hard, in longer form
Two pieces on the parts of this problem that are governance questions rather than technical ones.
Practice & Adoption
The metered side of Common Measure
The same three people, and the moment each one decides Common Measure is worth paying for.
Read it →Practice & Adoption
The free side of Common Measure
Three examples of people who rely on eDNA results, use Common Measure, and never pay us.
Read it →Where to go next
Who we are
Who is building this, and how an external science committee keeps it neutral.
About Common Measure →The glossary
Plain definitions for the terms that appear in eDNA reports, tenders and method documents.
Read the glossary →