<code id='B995CE4B17'></code><style id='B995CE4B17'></style>
    • <acronym id='B995CE4B17'></acronym>
      <center id='B995CE4B17'><center id='B995CE4B17'><tfoot id='B995CE4B17'></tfoot></center><abbr id='B995CE4B17'><dir id='B995CE4B17'><tfoot id='B995CE4B17'></tfoot><noframes id='B995CE4B17'>

    • <optgroup id='B995CE4B17'><strike id='B995CE4B17'><sup id='B995CE4B17'></sup></strike><code id='B995CE4B17'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='B995CE4B17'><label id='B995CE4B17'><select id='B995CE4B17'><dt id='B995CE4B17'><span id='B995CE4B17'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='B995CE4B17'></u>
          <i id='B995CE4B17'><strike id='B995CE4B17'><tt id='B995CE4B17'><pre id='B995CE4B17'></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

          hotspot