<code id='C89077CD35'></code><style id='C89077CD35'></style>
    • <acronym id='C89077CD35'></acronym>
      <center id='C89077CD35'><center id='C89077CD35'><tfoot id='C89077CD35'></tfoot></center><abbr id='C89077CD35'><dir id='C89077CD35'><tfoot id='C89077CD35'></tfoot><noframes id='C89077CD35'>

    • <optgroup id='C89077CD35'><strike id='C89077CD35'><sup id='C89077CD35'></sup></strike><code id='C89077CD35'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='C89077CD35'><label id='C89077CD35'><select id='C89077CD35'><dt id='C89077CD35'><span id='C89077CD35'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='C89077CD35'></u>
          <i id='C89077CD35'><strike id='C89077CD35'><tt id='C89077CD35'><pre id='C89077CD35'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / explore / focus

          focus


          focus

          author:fashion    Page View:11
          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