What do you hope readers will take away from the piece?
The takeaway is how very dependent science is on the human component and how wonderfully interesting that is. The drive for uniformity in scientific publications tends to minimize understanding of the humanism of science. That drive is misplaced. Maybe scientific articles should be broader to include the human component as appropriate.It would be really interesting to see what history would have been like, if we could run the counterfactuals. What would history have been like, if Woodward or Hoffmann had not had this flash of insight, and it had been someone else? What would it have been like if Woodward had taken ill that summer?
The "human component" is something that I don't think folks think about very often, and I think it is an important factor in how we prioritize problems to solve with science, and how they are solved.