<code id='159EEC7479'></code><style id='159EEC7479'></style>
    • <acronym id='159EEC7479'></acronym>
      <center id='159EEC7479'><center id='159EEC7479'><tfoot id='159EEC7479'></tfoot></center><abbr id='159EEC7479'><dir id='159EEC7479'><tfoot id='159EEC7479'></tfoot><noframes id='159EEC7479'>

    • <optgroup id='159EEC7479'><strike id='159EEC7479'><sup id='159EEC7479'></sup></strike><code id='159EEC7479'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='159EEC7479'><label id='159EEC7479'><select id='159EEC7479'><dt id='159EEC7479'><span id='159EEC7479'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='159EEC7479'></u>
          <i id='159EEC7479'><strike id='159EEC7479'><tt id='159EEC7479'><pre id='159EEC7479'></pre></tt></strike></i>

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

          comprehensive

          author:knowledge    - browse:78
          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

          focus