<code id='CF0103513E'></code><style id='CF0103513E'></style>
    • <acronym id='CF0103513E'></acronym>
      <center id='CF0103513E'><center id='CF0103513E'><tfoot id='CF0103513E'></tfoot></center><abbr id='CF0103513E'><dir id='CF0103513E'><tfoot id='CF0103513E'></tfoot><noframes id='CF0103513E'>

    • <optgroup id='CF0103513E'><strike id='CF0103513E'><sup id='CF0103513E'></sup></strike><code id='CF0103513E'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='CF0103513E'><label id='CF0103513E'><select id='CF0103513E'><dt id='CF0103513E'><span id='CF0103513E'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='CF0103513E'></u>
          <i id='CF0103513E'><strike id='CF0103513E'><tt id='CF0103513E'><pre id='CF0103513E'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / comprehensive / knowledge

          knowledge


          knowledge

          author:fashion    Page View:34
          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