<code id='DA86354CC2'></code><style id='DA86354CC2'></style>
    • <acronym id='DA86354CC2'></acronym>
      <center id='DA86354CC2'><center id='DA86354CC2'><tfoot id='DA86354CC2'></tfoot></center><abbr id='DA86354CC2'><dir id='DA86354CC2'><tfoot id='DA86354CC2'></tfoot><noframes id='DA86354CC2'>

    • <optgroup id='DA86354CC2'><strike id='DA86354CC2'><sup id='DA86354CC2'></sup></strike><code id='DA86354CC2'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='DA86354CC2'><label id='DA86354CC2'><select id='DA86354CC2'><dt id='DA86354CC2'><span id='DA86354CC2'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='DA86354CC2'></u>
          <i id='DA86354CC2'><strike id='DA86354CC2'><tt id='DA86354CC2'><pre id='DA86354CC2'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / comprehensive / comprehensive

          comprehensive


          comprehensive

          author:hotspot    Page View:8
          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