<code id='36D458FACD'></code><style id='36D458FACD'></style>
    • <acronym id='36D458FACD'></acronym>
      <center id='36D458FACD'><center id='36D458FACD'><tfoot id='36D458FACD'></tfoot></center><abbr id='36D458FACD'><dir id='36D458FACD'><tfoot id='36D458FACD'></tfoot><noframes id='36D458FACD'>

    • <optgroup id='36D458FACD'><strike id='36D458FACD'><sup id='36D458FACD'></sup></strike><code id='36D458FACD'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='36D458FACD'><label id='36D458FACD'><select id='36D458FACD'><dt id='36D458FACD'><span id='36D458FACD'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='36D458FACD'></u>
          <i id='36D458FACD'><strike id='36D458FACD'><tt id='36D458FACD'><pre id='36D458FACD'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          
          WSS
          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

          Leave your comment

          Please enter your name
          Please enter your comment

          comprehensive