<code id='4AAB589886'></code><style id='4AAB589886'></style>
    • <acronym id='4AAB589886'></acronym>
      <center id='4AAB589886'><center id='4AAB589886'><tfoot id='4AAB589886'></tfoot></center><abbr id='4AAB589886'><dir id='4AAB589886'><tfoot id='4AAB589886'></tfoot><noframes id='4AAB589886'>

    • <optgroup id='4AAB589886'><strike id='4AAB589886'><sup id='4AAB589886'></sup></strike><code id='4AAB589886'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='4AAB589886'><label id='4AAB589886'><select id='4AAB589886'><dt id='4AAB589886'><span id='4AAB589886'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='4AAB589886'></u>
          <i id='4AAB589886'><strike id='4AAB589886'><tt id='4AAB589886'><pre id='4AAB589886'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / knowledge / knowledge

          knowledge


          knowledge

          author:explore    Page View:82199
          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