<code id='96872F3117'></code><style id='96872F3117'></style>
    • <acronym id='96872F3117'></acronym>
      <center id='96872F3117'><center id='96872F3117'><tfoot id='96872F3117'></tfoot></center><abbr id='96872F3117'><dir id='96872F3117'><tfoot id='96872F3117'></tfoot><noframes id='96872F3117'>

    • <optgroup id='96872F3117'><strike id='96872F3117'><sup id='96872F3117'></sup></strike><code id='96872F3117'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='96872F3117'><label id='96872F3117'><select id='96872F3117'><dt id='96872F3117'><span id='96872F3117'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='96872F3117'></u>
          <i id='96872F3117'><strike id='96872F3117'><tt id='96872F3117'><pre id='96872F3117'></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