<code id='46BD4290DB'></code><style id='46BD4290DB'></style>
    • <acronym id='46BD4290DB'></acronym>
      <center id='46BD4290DB'><center id='46BD4290DB'><tfoot id='46BD4290DB'></tfoot></center><abbr id='46BD4290DB'><dir id='46BD4290DB'><tfoot id='46BD4290DB'></tfoot><noframes id='46BD4290DB'>

    • <optgroup id='46BD4290DB'><strike id='46BD4290DB'><sup id='46BD4290DB'></sup></strike><code id='46BD4290DB'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='46BD4290DB'><label id='46BD4290DB'><select id='46BD4290DB'><dt id='46BD4290DB'><span id='46BD4290DB'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='46BD4290DB'></u>
          <i id='46BD4290DB'><strike id='46BD4290DB'><tt id='46BD4290DB'><pre id='46BD4290DB'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / explore / comprehensive

          comprehensive


          comprehensive

          author:leisure time    Page View:348
          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