<code id='A64887CA49'></code><style id='A64887CA49'></style>
    • <acronym id='A64887CA49'></acronym>
      <center id='A64887CA49'><center id='A64887CA49'><tfoot id='A64887CA49'></tfoot></center><abbr id='A64887CA49'><dir id='A64887CA49'><tfoot id='A64887CA49'></tfoot><noframes id='A64887CA49'>

    • <optgroup id='A64887CA49'><strike id='A64887CA49'><sup id='A64887CA49'></sup></strike><code id='A64887CA49'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='A64887CA49'><label id='A64887CA49'><select id='A64887CA49'><dt id='A64887CA49'><span id='A64887CA49'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='A64887CA49'></u>
          <i id='A64887CA49'><strike id='A64887CA49'><tt id='A64887CA49'><pre id='A64887CA49'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / comprehensive / focus

          focus


          focus

          author:comprehensive    Page View:31677
          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