Which universities or government agencies have formally investigated Bigfoot claims or field evidence?

1. Universities that have tested or publicly handled physical samples

Oxford University (UK) and the Museum of Zoology in Lausanne conducted a coordinated, peer‑review oriented effort in 2012 by soliciting hair samples thought to come from “anomalous primates” and then subjecting them to genetic analysis; reporting on that project emphasized standard lab protocols and found the samples did not demonstrate yeti/Bigfoot species ^{[1] [5]}. Coverage of the project characterizes it as an example of reputable institutions applying accepted genetic testing to cryptid claims ^{[1] [5]}. Available sources do not mention other universities running large, published genetic screens on Bigfoot samples, though individual scholars at other universities have engaged with evidence in different ways ^[5].

2. Individual academics and university labs that have engaged evidence

Jeffrey Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University, has publicly examined and housed large collections of footprint casts—reports say his lab stores over 150–300 casts and that some forensic analysts found them notable ^{[2] [6] [7]}. Grover Krantz, formerly at Washington State University, is documented as a university-based anthropologist who studied casts and other claimed evidence in past decades ^[3]. These are examples of individual scholars using university affiliation to study trace evidence rather than formal institutional Bigfoot research programs ^{[2] [3]}. Library guides and university libraries (e.g., Western Washington University) collect resources about cryptozoology and document both fringe organizations and academic critiques, indicating university interest as curation and critique rather than endorsement ^[8].

3. Government agency involvement — what the FBI actually did

The FBI released a historical file on Bigfoot inquiries; reporting and the FBI’s own correspondence show the bureau searched its records but found no evidence that it had analyzed suspected Bigfoot hair and made clear it typically conducts analyses only in the context of criminal investigations ^[4]. History’s reporting stresses the agency did not endorse Bigfoot and that its involvement was limited to administrative response to public inquiries ^[4]. Other government actors (e.g., state investigators) have sometimes investigated particular local claims — for instance, a California state investigator reviewed a 2017 sighting and concluded it was a bear — but systematic federal or state programs to validate Bigfoot have not been documented in these sources ^[9].

4. Non‑university research groups and the role they play

Organizations dedicated to Bigfoot research exist outside universities: the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) was founded in 1995 and operates as a central community group that collects sightings and coordinates searches; university libraries list regional Bigfoot research centers and networks as primary resources for field evidence ^{[10] [8]}. These groups frequently gather footprint casts, photos, and witness reports and sometimes supply samples to outside labs, but professional scientists have warned about contamination and collection standards when enthusiasts collect samples ^[11].

5. What the scientific publications and mainstream outlets conclude

Peer‑reviewed analyses and science coverage of sample testing (e.g., the Oxford/Lausanne project) concluded that the submitted hair samples did not reveal an unknown primate; Science News and related outlets framed those results as “none reveal the existence of a yeti or Bigfoot” ^[5]. Mainstream science outlets and skeptical summaries stress there is no hard, conclusive evidence for Bigfoot and note pitfalls like hoaxes, misidentification, and sample contamination ^{[3] [11]}. At the same time, mainstream features (National Geographic, History) have reported on forensic analysts and university‑affiliated researchers (like Meldrum) who argue some footprint casts merit further study, showing disagreement exists about the best interpretation of trace evidence ^{[7] [2]}.

6. Limitations, disagreements and what’s not in the reporting

Available sources document sample testing by Oxford/Lausanne and investigator work at Idaho State and Washington State, plus an FBI file; they do not support claims that any major university runs an institutional Bigfoot program funded as mainstream science ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. Sources disagree about how compelling footprint casts or other traces are: some forensic experts and individual academics find certain casts intriguing, while broader scientific coverage emphasizes negative genetic results and lack of corroborating evidence ^{[7] [5] [3]}. Available sources do not mention, for example, comprehensive multi‑university coordinated field programs specifically devoted to proving Bigfoot’s existence (not found in current reporting).

Conclusion: Oxford University and the Lausanne museum led formal sample testing; Idaho State University and Washington State University are associated with prominent individual researchers and collections of footprint casts; the FBI produced historical files and correspondence but did not perform a conclusive forensic endorsement. Citizen groups like BFRO conduct field collection and reporting, while mainstream science coverage remains skeptical and highlights negative genetic results and methodological concerns ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [10]}.