<code id='91D5155847'></code><style id='91D5155847'></style>
    • <acronym id='91D5155847'></acronym>
      <center id='91D5155847'><center id='91D5155847'><tfoot id='91D5155847'></tfoot></center><abbr id='91D5155847'><dir id='91D5155847'><tfoot id='91D5155847'></tfoot><noframes id='91D5155847'>

    • <optgroup id='91D5155847'><strike id='91D5155847'><sup id='91D5155847'></sup></strike><code id='91D5155847'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='91D5155847'><label id='91D5155847'><select id='91D5155847'><dt id='91D5155847'><span id='91D5155847'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='91D5155847'></u>
          <i id='91D5155847'><strike id='91D5155847'><tt id='91D5155847'><pre id='91D5155847'></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:hotspot    - browse:59245
          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