<code id='475415DC77'></code><style id='475415DC77'></style>
    • <acronym id='475415DC77'></acronym>
      <center id='475415DC77'><center id='475415DC77'><tfoot id='475415DC77'></tfoot></center><abbr id='475415DC77'><dir id='475415DC77'><tfoot id='475415DC77'></tfoot><noframes id='475415DC77'>

    • <optgroup id='475415DC77'><strike id='475415DC77'><sup id='475415DC77'></sup></strike><code id='475415DC77'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='475415DC77'><label id='475415DC77'><select id='475415DC77'><dt id='475415DC77'><span id='475415DC77'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='475415DC77'></u>
          <i id='475415DC77'><strike id='475415DC77'><tt id='475415DC77'><pre id='475415DC77'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / entertainment / comprehensive

          comprehensive


          comprehensive

          author:explore    Page View:758
          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