<code id='3724D18809'></code><style id='3724D18809'></style>
    • <acronym id='3724D18809'></acronym>
      <center id='3724D18809'><center id='3724D18809'><tfoot id='3724D18809'></tfoot></center><abbr id='3724D18809'><dir id='3724D18809'><tfoot id='3724D18809'></tfoot><noframes id='3724D18809'>

    • <optgroup id='3724D18809'><strike id='3724D18809'><sup id='3724D18809'></sup></strike><code id='3724D18809'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='3724D18809'><label id='3724D18809'><select id='3724D18809'><dt id='3724D18809'><span id='3724D18809'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='3724D18809'></u>
          <i id='3724D18809'><strike id='3724D18809'><tt id='3724D18809'><pre id='3724D18809'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / entertainment / focus

          focus


          focus

          author:hotspot    Page View:546
          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