<code id='62442FB06B'></code><style id='62442FB06B'></style>
    • <acronym id='62442FB06B'></acronym>
      <center id='62442FB06B'><center id='62442FB06B'><tfoot id='62442FB06B'></tfoot></center><abbr id='62442FB06B'><dir id='62442FB06B'><tfoot id='62442FB06B'></tfoot><noframes id='62442FB06B'>

    • <optgroup id='62442FB06B'><strike id='62442FB06B'><sup id='62442FB06B'></sup></strike><code id='62442FB06B'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='62442FB06B'><label id='62442FB06B'><select id='62442FB06B'><dt id='62442FB06B'><span id='62442FB06B'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='62442FB06B'></u>
          <i id='62442FB06B'><strike id='62442FB06B'><tt id='62442FB06B'><pre id='62442FB06B'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / fashion / knowledge

          knowledge


          knowledge

          author:entertainment    Page View:387
          Peter Marks. -- health coverage from STAT
          Peter Marks, Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration. Susan Walsh-Pool/Getty Images

          Peter Marks wants drug developers to ask more stupid questions.

          It’s part of the top Food and Drug Administration official’s plan to reinvigorate gene therapy, a field that has struggled despite significant technological advances. Some companies are shelving programs or going out of business, even when they have promising data. 

          advertisement

          The problems are numerous: The diseases are often exceptionally rare, limiting the potential market. Manufacturing at commercial quality is complex and expensive. Proving a drug works can be difficult, because there may be too few patients to run a traditional randomized study. 

          Get unlimited access to award-winning journalism and exclusive events.

          Subscribe Log In