<code id='366E937752'></code><style id='366E937752'></style>
    • <acronym id='366E937752'></acronym>
      <center id='366E937752'><center id='366E937752'><tfoot id='366E937752'></tfoot></center><abbr id='366E937752'><dir id='366E937752'><tfoot id='366E937752'></tfoot><noframes id='366E937752'>

    • <optgroup id='366E937752'><strike id='366E937752'><sup id='366E937752'></sup></strike><code id='366E937752'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='366E937752'><label id='366E937752'><select id='366E937752'><dt id='366E937752'><span id='366E937752'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='366E937752'></u>
          <i id='366E937752'><strike id='366E937752'><tt id='366E937752'><pre id='366E937752'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / hotspot / comprehensive

          comprehensive


          comprehensive

          author:explore    Page View:7377
          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