<code id='ABAA771AF6'></code><style id='ABAA771AF6'></style>
    • <acronym id='ABAA771AF6'></acronym>
      <center id='ABAA771AF6'><center id='ABAA771AF6'><tfoot id='ABAA771AF6'></tfoot></center><abbr id='ABAA771AF6'><dir id='ABAA771AF6'><tfoot id='ABAA771AF6'></tfoot><noframes id='ABAA771AF6'>

    • <optgroup id='ABAA771AF6'><strike id='ABAA771AF6'><sup id='ABAA771AF6'></sup></strike><code id='ABAA771AF6'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='ABAA771AF6'><label id='ABAA771AF6'><select id='ABAA771AF6'><dt id='ABAA771AF6'><span id='ABAA771AF6'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='ABAA771AF6'></u>
          <i id='ABAA771AF6'><strike id='ABAA771AF6'><tt id='ABAA771AF6'><pre id='ABAA771AF6'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / Wikipedia / comprehensive

          comprehensive


          comprehensive

          author:focus    Page View:1
          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