<code id='BE3280534D'></code><style id='BE3280534D'></style>
    • <acronym id='BE3280534D'></acronym>
      <center id='BE3280534D'><center id='BE3280534D'><tfoot id='BE3280534D'></tfoot></center><abbr id='BE3280534D'><dir id='BE3280534D'><tfoot id='BE3280534D'></tfoot><noframes id='BE3280534D'>

    • <optgroup id='BE3280534D'><strike id='BE3280534D'><sup id='BE3280534D'></sup></strike><code id='BE3280534D'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='BE3280534D'><label id='BE3280534D'><select id='BE3280534D'><dt id='BE3280534D'><span id='BE3280534D'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='BE3280534D'></u>
          <i id='BE3280534D'><strike id='BE3280534D'><tt id='BE3280534D'><pre id='BE3280534D'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / explore / focus

          focus


          focus

          author:leisure time    Page View:2943
          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