<code id='46A7990391'></code><style id='46A7990391'></style>
    • <acronym id='46A7990391'></acronym>
      <center id='46A7990391'><center id='46A7990391'><tfoot id='46A7990391'></tfoot></center><abbr id='46A7990391'><dir id='46A7990391'><tfoot id='46A7990391'></tfoot><noframes id='46A7990391'>

    • <optgroup id='46A7990391'><strike id='46A7990391'><sup id='46A7990391'></sup></strike><code id='46A7990391'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='46A7990391'><label id='46A7990391'><select id='46A7990391'><dt id='46A7990391'><span id='46A7990391'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='46A7990391'></u>
          <i id='46A7990391'><strike id='46A7990391'><tt id='46A7990391'><pre id='46A7990391'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / comprehensive / knowledge

          knowledge


          knowledge

          author:fashion    Page View:2929
          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