<code id='551ECA38F8'></code><style id='551ECA38F8'></style>
    • <acronym id='551ECA38F8'></acronym>
      <center id='551ECA38F8'><center id='551ECA38F8'><tfoot id='551ECA38F8'></tfoot></center><abbr id='551ECA38F8'><dir id='551ECA38F8'><tfoot id='551ECA38F8'></tfoot><noframes id='551ECA38F8'>

    • <optgroup id='551ECA38F8'><strike id='551ECA38F8'><sup id='551ECA38F8'></sup></strike><code id='551ECA38F8'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='551ECA38F8'><label id='551ECA38F8'><select id='551ECA38F8'><dt id='551ECA38F8'><span id='551ECA38F8'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='551ECA38F8'></u>
          <i id='551ECA38F8'><strike id='551ECA38F8'><tt id='551ECA38F8'><pre id='551ECA38F8'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / knowledge / knowledge

          knowledge


          knowledge

          author:focus    Page View:252
          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