Failed to understand the meaning of this "about"

Hi, O....
Try using the word 'questions' for 'uncertainties' and integrity for fidelity and 'concerning' for about.

The sentence means approximately the thing but might make that meaning clearer to you.

The introduction of genes, however, causes questions to be raised concerning the integrity of the cells.

I think they are worried that the introduction of the genes could lead to cells which might die sooner than expected or cells which fail to act in the expected ways.

~~Joe(Cheers) Nation

Excellent!
BTW, I could not get "A consistent and straightforward path" very well.
Does it mean "a stable and direct way"?

Yes.
Oristar
You are really good at this translation thing, you know.
"A stable and direct way" is a much better way of saying "a consistent and straightforward path."

Better because the words are simpler but impart the same meaning.

~~~
One of my teachers used to ask us to use only one or two syllable words when re-writing passages of what were great poems in English. It was really fun to strip away all the puffy stuffy phrases.

Joe(I do not always follow her sage advice)Nation

Joe(I know **** about English)Nation: Better because the words are simpler but impart the same meaning.

--------

You were doing so well, Joe. A thread where you hadn't made any gaffes. Then you go and blow it.

Joe: Joe(I do not always follow her sage advice)Nation

What a doofus!

It is so unwise to attack Joe, JTT.

Unwise, unpleasant, un-called for, and in this case, baseless.

Let us be nice today, as we win a gold medal in the curling final.

Joe(I do not always follow her sage advice)Nation
----------

Of course Joe doesn't follow her advice because it is not sage advice. It's utter nonsense, typical of those teachers who knew so little of language that they had to fill in the blanks with these inanities.

//////////

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=10416

It seems to reflect pretty well the main superstitions of English writing: use simpler sentences, don't use adverbs, use shorter words, don't use passives. I've heard these things parroted by my teachers and professors, and – as this blog has documented – by almost all professional writers who claim to offer usage advice. It's clear that these dicta are almost completely divorced from reality, but what I still struggle to understand is how our society has come to such near-universal agreement on them. When and why did we all decide that intricacy, nuance and variety of form are so evil?

Um. We didn't. What we did was read Faulkner, Hemingway and Salinger, three writers whose English was swept fairly clean of unnecessary multi-syllabic monstrosities where ever and whenever possible. We like that sort of clarity.

Cheer up, JTT, I'll write something for you, an embroidery of such complexity that you shall find yourself ensnared from its first two letter utterance to the final drumbeats of the Brobdingnagian sixteen syllable word found just before the full stop.

Joe(you have to ask nicely)Nation

Joe(I'm a liar)Nation: (makes an appearance) Um. We didn't.

You simply repeated an old canard, Joe. But that is old hat for you.

----------

The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not improved American students' grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it.

http://m.chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497#sthash.dv2Efopm.dpuf

///////////

Your knowledge of the English language you could fit on the head of a pin. If you thought for a moment instead of just regurgitating old crap from grade school you'd do much better. You started out okay.

Remember your dismal showing in JoefromC's 'so' thread. You took a powder.

"It's clear that these dicta are almost completely divorced from reality, ... "

And Joe(takes a powder)Nation - poof.

Take time to come back. Who's taking a powder?

Ori: Take time to come back. Who's taking a powder?
-------

Joe(the dismal language idiot)Nation

Who brought up the Elements of Style? Not me. I bought a copy in 1965 because I was required to do so in order to attend a class on 'Writing Headlines' or something like that. It was opened at least once that semester, but I can't remember why. I bet I still have it, but, since buying it and despite making my living from time to time by writing, I've never followed any of its rules unless it was by accident.

What old canard did I repeat? You do know what a canard is, right? I did commit a sin of omission. Should I send a letter of condolence to the heirs of F. Scott Fitzgerald for leaving him off the above posted list of writers we read and emulated? Who else should be on that list?

Remind me what the thread by Joefromchicago was, please. I haven't any clear memory of it, though it must have been important to you.

I'm off to go be with some real people in the real world, I hope the same for you, JTT.

Here's an old saw and one I just made up.
"Can God make a stone so large He can't lift it?" No.
Can a writer write something so obtuse, he can't understand it?

Joe(Happens all the time.)Nation

Joe: Who brought up the Elements of Style? Not me. I bought a copy in 1965 because I was required to do so in order to attend a class on 'Writing Headlines' or something like that. It was opened at least once that semester, but I can't remember why.
-------------

Apparently, from your offerings on language you treated all your grammar books in a similar fashion. But that's just as well because all those books and the resulting milieu have left you more than incompetent in the grammar of the English language.

On the odd occasion, when you rely on your native instincts, you offer some decent advice. Such was not the case here.

/////////////////

Joe: Here's an old saw and one I just made up.
"Can God make a stone so large He can't lift it?" No.
Can a writer write something so obtuse, he can't understand it?

Joe(Happens all the time.)Nation

///////////

No, that wasn't cool, Joe. Language requires more thought than you want to give. When you talk out of your ass, it's **** that comes out.

So toddle off to your social engagement, little butterfly.

-------------

Joe: Remind me what the thread by Joefromchicago was, please. I haven't any clear memory of it, though it must have been important to you.

////////////

Only important in that it is illustrative of what you do - make grand pronouncements on language when you're most times peddling bullshit. You went thru the whole thread in a grand fog; you had not the slightest idea what you were talking about and when that was pointed up to you, Mr Language took a powder.

Joe: (red faced, feigning) Remind me what the thread by Joefromchicago was, please. I haven't any clear memory of it, though it must have been important to you.

"So, in answer to your question..."

http://able2know.org/topic/192024-1