<code id='835AC568B7'></code><style id='835AC568B7'></style>
    • <acronym id='835AC568B7'></acronym>
      <center id='835AC568B7'><center id='835AC568B7'><tfoot id='835AC568B7'></tfoot></center><abbr id='835AC568B7'><dir id='835AC568B7'><tfoot id='835AC568B7'></tfoot><noframes id='835AC568B7'>

    • <optgroup id='835AC568B7'><strike id='835AC568B7'><sup id='835AC568B7'></sup></strike><code id='835AC568B7'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='835AC568B7'><label id='835AC568B7'><select id='835AC568B7'><dt id='835AC568B7'><span id='835AC568B7'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='835AC568B7'></u>
          <i id='835AC568B7'><strike id='835AC568B7'><tt id='835AC568B7'><pre id='835AC568B7'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          Home / entertainment / focus

          focus


          focus

          author:explore    Page View:7314
          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