<code id='94402DCAE8'></code><style id='94402DCAE8'></style>
    • <acronym id='94402DCAE8'></acronym>
      <center id='94402DCAE8'><center id='94402DCAE8'><tfoot id='94402DCAE8'></tfoot></center><abbr id='94402DCAE8'><dir id='94402DCAE8'><tfoot id='94402DCAE8'></tfoot><noframes id='94402DCAE8'>

    • <optgroup id='94402DCAE8'><strike id='94402DCAE8'><sup id='94402DCAE8'></sup></strike><code id='94402DCAE8'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='94402DCAE8'><label id='94402DCAE8'><select id='94402DCAE8'><dt id='94402DCAE8'><span id='94402DCAE8'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='94402DCAE8'></u>
          <i id='94402DCAE8'><strike id='94402DCAE8'><tt id='94402DCAE8'><pre id='94402DCAE8'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / explore / comprehensive

          comprehensive


          comprehensive

          author:explore    Page View:319
          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