<code id='406878FC5A'></code><style id='406878FC5A'></style>
    • <acronym id='406878FC5A'></acronym>
      <center id='406878FC5A'><center id='406878FC5A'><tfoot id='406878FC5A'></tfoot></center><abbr id='406878FC5A'><dir id='406878FC5A'><tfoot id='406878FC5A'></tfoot><noframes id='406878FC5A'>

    • <optgroup id='406878FC5A'><strike id='406878FC5A'><sup id='406878FC5A'></sup></strike><code id='406878FC5A'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='406878FC5A'><label id='406878FC5A'><select id='406878FC5A'><dt id='406878FC5A'><span id='406878FC5A'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='406878FC5A'></u>
          <i id='406878FC5A'><strike id='406878FC5A'><tt id='406878FC5A'><pre id='406878FC5A'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / explore / focus

          focus


          focus

          author:fashion    Page View:59
          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