<code id='481C766B37'></code><style id='481C766B37'></style>
    • <acronym id='481C766B37'></acronym>
      <center id='481C766B37'><center id='481C766B37'><tfoot id='481C766B37'></tfoot></center><abbr id='481C766B37'><dir id='481C766B37'><tfoot id='481C766B37'></tfoot><noframes id='481C766B37'>

    • <optgroup id='481C766B37'><strike id='481C766B37'><sup id='481C766B37'></sup></strike><code id='481C766B37'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='481C766B37'><label id='481C766B37'><select id='481C766B37'><dt id='481C766B37'><span id='481C766B37'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='481C766B37'></u>
          <i id='481C766B37'><strike id='481C766B37'><tt id='481C766B37'><pre id='481C766B37'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / comprehensive / focus

          focus


          focus

          author:entertainment    Page View:74412
          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