<code id='59477515F9'></code><style id='59477515F9'></style>
    • <acronym id='59477515F9'></acronym>
      <center id='59477515F9'><center id='59477515F9'><tfoot id='59477515F9'></tfoot></center><abbr id='59477515F9'><dir id='59477515F9'><tfoot id='59477515F9'></tfoot><noframes id='59477515F9'>

    • <optgroup id='59477515F9'><strike id='59477515F9'><sup id='59477515F9'></sup></strike><code id='59477515F9'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='59477515F9'><label id='59477515F9'><select id='59477515F9'><dt id='59477515F9'><span id='59477515F9'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='59477515F9'></u>
          <i id='59477515F9'><strike id='59477515F9'><tt id='59477515F9'><pre id='59477515F9'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / fashion / focus

          focus


          focus

          author:focus    Page View:6
          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