<code id='AB53337258'></code><style id='AB53337258'></style>
    • <acronym id='AB53337258'></acronym>
      <center id='AB53337258'><center id='AB53337258'><tfoot id='AB53337258'></tfoot></center><abbr id='AB53337258'><dir id='AB53337258'><tfoot id='AB53337258'></tfoot><noframes id='AB53337258'>

    • <optgroup id='AB53337258'><strike id='AB53337258'><sup id='AB53337258'></sup></strike><code id='AB53337258'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='AB53337258'><label id='AB53337258'><select id='AB53337258'><dt id='AB53337258'><span id='AB53337258'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='AB53337258'></u>
          <i id='AB53337258'><strike id='AB53337258'><tt id='AB53337258'><pre id='AB53337258'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / comprehensive / comprehensive

          comprehensive


          comprehensive

          author:knowledge    Page View:47
          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