Confusing…

Posted on July 9, 2006 - Filed Under Punch Forum |

Eduardo Pontaoe
8 July 2006


Sosimo Ma. Pablico, is a very fascinating writer. His articles are full of confusion that a reader misunderstood that preservation of embryos is equivalent to cloning.

His deduction on cryopreservation of embryos by vitrification procedure is not only wrong but absolutely misleading.

Cryopreservation . . . . . is the preserving of embryos at Kelvin temperature (1/273.16 unit of absolute zero temp.)

Vitrification. . . . the process of using heat and fusion to convert dental porcelain to a glassy substance.

Now, my question to Mr. Pablico. How can you preserve an embryo when you transport it in a very hot environment?

Where did you get this information that transport of embryos at Kelvin is done thru vitrification?

For your info, Mr. Pablico, transport of frozen embryos is done in containers without the aid of your so called vitrification.

Misinformation to your readers is a journalistic sin of untold proportions.

Your credibility is shut.

Mr. Pablico's reply:
July 10, 2006

Dear Mr. Pontaoe,

Thank you for your feedback on my story, “Pangasinan’s pride in Agricultural Research,” which appeared in the July 2 issue of the Sunday Punch.

You tried to point out a mistake in my story, which I appreciate. However, for you to say “His articles are full confusion that a reader misunderstood that preservation of embryos is equivalent to cloning” is also utterly wrong. Nowhere in my story did I mention that preservation of embryos is equivalent to cloning; neither did I insinuate it. I don’t know where you got that impression.

My only mistake in my story was to mention cryopreservation by vitrification procedure. True, I should not have mentioned the term “vitrification procedure”. I stand corrected. Only uneducated persons don’t know how to accept criticisms. However, Duran and her team developed a cryopreservation technique to be able to store the embryos and transport them to the Philippines.

You must be a very learned man, but you don’t have enough bases to claim that my articles are full of confusion. You may have meant that this particular story has a confusing portion, but I can tell you that except for this portion, all other facts in the story are correct.

Based on how you wrote your feedback, you must be also a very angry man to come up with a generalization that my articles are full of confusion. One mistake does not make all my stories confusing. You have to read all my stories starting from the 1960s before you can reach that conclusion.

I must admit that you could have educated me better if you only wrote your comments in a nice way. Just one word of advice: You can tell the mistakes made by others and criticize them without being nasty and you can become their friend. Thank you anyway.

Sosimo Ma. Pablico

Comments

Leave a Reply