<code id='750CD88A64'></code><style id='750CD88A64'></style>
    • <acronym id='750CD88A64'></acronym>
      <center id='750CD88A64'><center id='750CD88A64'><tfoot id='750CD88A64'></tfoot></center><abbr id='750CD88A64'><dir id='750CD88A64'><tfoot id='750CD88A64'></tfoot><noframes id='750CD88A64'>

    • <optgroup id='750CD88A64'><strike id='750CD88A64'><sup id='750CD88A64'></sup></strike><code id='750CD88A64'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='750CD88A64'><label id='750CD88A64'><select id='750CD88A64'><dt id='750CD88A64'><span id='750CD88A64'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='750CD88A64'></u>
          <i id='750CD88A64'><strike id='750CD88A64'><tt id='750CD88A64'><pre id='750CD88A64'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / explore / knowledge

          knowledge


          knowledge

          author:explore    Page View:3314
          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