<code id='65D48C7048'></code><style id='65D48C7048'></style>
    • <acronym id='65D48C7048'></acronym>
      <center id='65D48C7048'><center id='65D48C7048'><tfoot id='65D48C7048'></tfoot></center><abbr id='65D48C7048'><dir id='65D48C7048'><tfoot id='65D48C7048'></tfoot><noframes id='65D48C7048'>

    • <optgroup id='65D48C7048'><strike id='65D48C7048'><sup id='65D48C7048'></sup></strike><code id='65D48C7048'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='65D48C7048'><label id='65D48C7048'><select id='65D48C7048'><dt id='65D48C7048'><span id='65D48C7048'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='65D48C7048'></u>
          <i id='65D48C7048'><strike id='65D48C7048'><tt id='65D48C7048'><pre id='65D48C7048'></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