Reading “The New Mystery – Maybe Miracle – Drug” gives a strong contrast to modern New York Times article. I find the article to be really long. I was thinking “If this is the popular article, then how long is the journal article.” Compared to modern science popular articles that I read, this 1971 article contains thorough evidence and higher level complexity. I can see many instances of knowledge sense and data sense, when the author describes the research and its importance. I see number sense when the author shows the level of success in the induction of labor or abortion. I liked the fact that the statistical data is not overwhelming, but just enough to see the function of prostaglandins. The many findings and questions seem to leave the question unanswered, leading to stronger interests. As described in the article, research is not simple finding, but an exploration through facts that can last many years and through the hands of other scientists. An example of what I mean is Professor Ulf S. von Euler encouraging a younger colleague to continue his work.

Looking at the placement of the molecular drawings and images of scientists, I find that the pictures correspond to the text rather than appear as a chronology of history. Mentioning Dr. Sultan H. M. Karim, a scientist who studied the hormone in the 1960s first, Galton establishes why is this hormone worth the research. The next two scientists who had pictures printed on this article are Professor Ulf S. von Euler and Professor Sune Bergstrom. Both scientists made major contribution to prostaglandins, but one was from the 1930s and the other from the 1950s. While both scientists were before Dr. Karim, Galton chooses to present them after. His decision to do might be that Galton wants to present a path of discovery rather than facts. Overlapping scientists from different time is used to help convey the idea that through many years of research, the pieces of the puzzle are built one by one, leading to a product waiting to be changed up again. In this way, the author writes using a less fixed structure, opting for a structure where he can add more connections and research evidence. This story-telling style makes the article more interesting to read. The information and facts provided becomes details that enrich the main idea, rather than being burdensome.

After reading this article I realized that I underestimated the abilities of the freelance writers of New York Times. If the level of requirements for popular articles today is the same as that of 1970s, then the level of information in each article is worth a read.