<code id='35F5476B18'></code><style id='35F5476B18'></style>
    • <acronym id='35F5476B18'></acronym>
      <center id='35F5476B18'><center id='35F5476B18'><tfoot id='35F5476B18'></tfoot></center><abbr id='35F5476B18'><dir id='35F5476B18'><tfoot id='35F5476B18'></tfoot><noframes id='35F5476B18'>

    • <optgroup id='35F5476B18'><strike id='35F5476B18'><sup id='35F5476B18'></sup></strike><code id='35F5476B18'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='35F5476B18'><label id='35F5476B18'><select id='35F5476B18'><dt id='35F5476B18'><span id='35F5476B18'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='35F5476B18'></u>
          <i id='35F5476B18'><strike id='35F5476B18'><tt id='35F5476B18'><pre id='35F5476B18'></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

          comprehensive