<code id='459D179D7A'></code><style id='459D179D7A'></style>
    • <acronym id='459D179D7A'></acronym>
      <center id='459D179D7A'><center id='459D179D7A'><tfoot id='459D179D7A'></tfoot></center><abbr id='459D179D7A'><dir id='459D179D7A'><tfoot id='459D179D7A'></tfoot><noframes id='459D179D7A'>

    • <optgroup id='459D179D7A'><strike id='459D179D7A'><sup id='459D179D7A'></sup></strike><code id='459D179D7A'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='459D179D7A'><label id='459D179D7A'><select id='459D179D7A'><dt id='459D179D7A'><span id='459D179D7A'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='459D179D7A'></u>
          <i id='459D179D7A'><strike id='459D179D7A'><tt id='459D179D7A'><pre id='459D179D7A'></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

          knowledge