Dear Editor,

I am writing this letter because I am thoroughly confused by the article “The New Mystery-Maybe Miracle-Drug.”  While it is clear to me that there were very serious studies conducted on prostaglandins it seems to me that this articles spreads itself too thin.  After reading the article I am not sure that any conclusions were made about what prostaglandins can actually accomplish, but rather I feel as though I have learned about the potential of what prostaglandins may accomplish.  This article written in 1971 would be compose fairly differently had it been written in today’s day and age.   If the article was written in 2017 it would be more likely be written about a single study using prostaglandins that discussed the potential of prostaglandins in one area and would come to a more concrete conclusion.

I gathered that prostaglandins may be very useful with abortion, heart problems, and in other areas as well, but it was not made clear as to what the use of prostaglandins would be most effective for and whether or not anything has definitively worked.  I understand that this article was written to explain all of the potential that a drug like this might have, but based off of the research I did for my Hot Topic presentation I believe that popular articles nowadays seem to have more concrete facts and don’t allow so many things to be left open.  While this article referenced many studies that were conducted using the 3 science senses it did not seem like those studies were ever officially closed.  For a long period of time the article was mainly focused on abortion, but all of the sudden it kicked into a whole different gear and started discussing other areas where the drug might come in good use.  I believe that abortion is a large enough topic that it could warrant its own article.  I think that since the New York Times is a popular media reference it would have been easier for readers to understand the article had it focused on one topic.

The article also failed to come to a concrete conclusion.  When starting to read the article, I was hoping that the prostaglandins would officially be in use to cure something, or to help mankind in some way.  However, I left learning that prostaglandins have tremendous potential and scientists are still trying to find exactly the ways to best utilize them for a powerful drug which may be able to do a variety of things.  I understand that various studies were conducted, and I understand that this drug can have major implications, but why write the article before we even know exactly how the drug can help us.  I feel as though if no drug was created at the end of the day because scientists were unable to find a proper use then this article provided a lot of false hope.  The author did not make the article hard to understand necessarily, but the way the article bounced back and forth and the formatting of the article made it unclear what the main use of this drug would be.

Overall, I believe that this article should have been edited further and specified exactly what the main purpose of this drug will be and I feel as though this article should have been written using a different more structured format in order for the audience to greater understand what has come out of these studies and what the goals are for the future.


Thank you,

Evan Harris