This article is definitely longer and denser than the New York Times articles of today. It definitely gives a more scientific explanation of the findings, but it does also address the real life impact these findings may have on society and people’s everyday life just as todays New York Times articles do. I think the greater technical detail is an indicator that the readership of the New York Time in 1971 was maybe less broad than it is today; maybe only the highly educated read the newspaper, or at least the New York Times specifically.

While I do think this article is a bit too long and technical for the New York Times today, I do believe there should be a platform for articles like this one today. Articles that are not quite as long or specific as the primary source but also not as general as todays articles tend to be when discussing healthcare and scientific breakthroughs should be available for those who prefer the easy reading format of a newspaper or magazine article but would like to truly understand the science behind the breakthrough being discussed.

As for the inclusion of the molecular drawings I believe these would be informative to those who are scientifically inclined. For others they might simply exhibit if the technical detail to which this article goes. For some it might even be an indicator that the adjacent article is entirely too scientific and technical in nature for them to comprehend anything and to instead skip this article.