<code id='99323947BD'></code><style id='99323947BD'></style>
    • <acronym id='99323947BD'></acronym>
      <center id='99323947BD'><center id='99323947BD'><tfoot id='99323947BD'></tfoot></center><abbr id='99323947BD'><dir id='99323947BD'><tfoot id='99323947BD'></tfoot><noframes id='99323947BD'>

    • <optgroup id='99323947BD'><strike id='99323947BD'><sup id='99323947BD'></sup></strike><code id='99323947BD'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='99323947BD'><label id='99323947BD'><select id='99323947BD'><dt id='99323947BD'><span id='99323947BD'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='99323947BD'></u>
          <i id='99323947BD'><strike id='99323947BD'><tt id='99323947BD'><pre id='99323947BD'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / hotspot / comprehensive

          comprehensive


          comprehensive

          author:fashion    Page View:56314
          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