<code id='547C989394'></code><style id='547C989394'></style>
    • <acronym id='547C989394'></acronym>
      <center id='547C989394'><center id='547C989394'><tfoot id='547C989394'></tfoot></center><abbr id='547C989394'><dir id='547C989394'><tfoot id='547C989394'></tfoot><noframes id='547C989394'>

    • <optgroup id='547C989394'><strike id='547C989394'><sup id='547C989394'></sup></strike><code id='547C989394'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='547C989394'><label id='547C989394'><select id='547C989394'><dt id='547C989394'><span id='547C989394'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='547C989394'></u>
          <i id='547C989394'><strike id='547C989394'><tt id='547C989394'><pre id='547C989394'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          00:00
          00:00 00:00 LIVE
          buffering
          Replay
          LIVE
          00:00 / 00:00
          LIVE
          CC
          Opacity :
          Share:
          Close

          focus

          author:comprehensive    - browse:48
          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

          Wikipedia