<code id='ECBF23B224'></code><style id='ECBF23B224'></style>
    • <acronym id='ECBF23B224'></acronym>
      <center id='ECBF23B224'><center id='ECBF23B224'><tfoot id='ECBF23B224'></tfoot></center><abbr id='ECBF23B224'><dir id='ECBF23B224'><tfoot id='ECBF23B224'></tfoot><noframes id='ECBF23B224'>

    • <optgroup id='ECBF23B224'><strike id='ECBF23B224'><sup id='ECBF23B224'></sup></strike><code id='ECBF23B224'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='ECBF23B224'><label id='ECBF23B224'><select id='ECBF23B224'><dt id='ECBF23B224'><span id='ECBF23B224'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='ECBF23B224'></u>
          <i id='ECBF23B224'><strike id='ECBF23B224'><tt id='ECBF23B224'><pre id='ECBF23B224'></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

          fashion