<code id='434AB8C190'></code><style id='434AB8C190'></style>
    • <acronym id='434AB8C190'></acronym>
      <center id='434AB8C190'><center id='434AB8C190'><tfoot id='434AB8C190'></tfoot></center><abbr id='434AB8C190'><dir id='434AB8C190'><tfoot id='434AB8C190'></tfoot><noframes id='434AB8C190'>

    • <optgroup id='434AB8C190'><strike id='434AB8C190'><sup id='434AB8C190'></sup></strike><code id='434AB8C190'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='434AB8C190'><label id='434AB8C190'><select id='434AB8C190'><dt id='434AB8C190'><span id='434AB8C190'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='434AB8C190'></u>
          <i id='434AB8C190'><strike id='434AB8C190'><tt id='434AB8C190'><pre id='434AB8C190'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / comprehensive / knowledge

          knowledge


          knowledge

          author:leisure time    Page View:59854
          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