<code id='EA69A17A01'></code><style id='EA69A17A01'></style>
    • <acronym id='EA69A17A01'></acronym>
      <center id='EA69A17A01'><center id='EA69A17A01'><tfoot id='EA69A17A01'></tfoot></center><abbr id='EA69A17A01'><dir id='EA69A17A01'><tfoot id='EA69A17A01'></tfoot><noframes id='EA69A17A01'>

    • <optgroup id='EA69A17A01'><strike id='EA69A17A01'><sup id='EA69A17A01'></sup></strike><code id='EA69A17A01'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='EA69A17A01'><label id='EA69A17A01'><select id='EA69A17A01'><dt id='EA69A17A01'><span id='EA69A17A01'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='EA69A17A01'></u>
          <i id='EA69A17A01'><strike id='EA69A17A01'><tt id='EA69A17A01'><pre id='EA69A17A01'></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