<code id='EF47EDE36C'></code><style id='EF47EDE36C'></style>
    • <acronym id='EF47EDE36C'></acronym>
      <center id='EF47EDE36C'><center id='EF47EDE36C'><tfoot id='EF47EDE36C'></tfoot></center><abbr id='EF47EDE36C'><dir id='EF47EDE36C'><tfoot id='EF47EDE36C'></tfoot><noframes id='EF47EDE36C'>

    • <optgroup id='EF47EDE36C'><strike id='EF47EDE36C'><sup id='EF47EDE36C'></sup></strike><code id='EF47EDE36C'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='EF47EDE36C'><label id='EF47EDE36C'><select id='EF47EDE36C'><dt id='EF47EDE36C'><span id='EF47EDE36C'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='EF47EDE36C'></u>
          <i id='EF47EDE36C'><strike id='EF47EDE36C'><tt id='EF47EDE36C'><pre id='EF47EDE36C'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / comprehensive / comprehensive

          comprehensive


          comprehensive

          author:leisure time    Page View:4
          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