I found the article by Natalie Angier in the NYT to be very effectively written. Firstly I found the way in which the lede was written to be very interesting. It was admittedly on the longer side of what I would think appropriate; however, I still found it gripping because of the cleaver use of language through juxtaposition (ie. “cheerfully cramped”, and “the onerous task of watching cartoons.”) Did you find the lede to be effective?
I especially appreciated how well Angier humanized Dr. Spelke (the article’s subject). After reading the article I had the sense that I really knew the Dr. personally and was therefore more invested in learning bout her research. Do you feel that the author’s choice to write such a personally story based article for a science section was a good one? And if it was a good choice do ever think there is a time in non-specialist journalistic writing where the opposite approach would be preferred?