WASHINGTON, D.C. - A seismic shift has rocked the FDA as Peter Marks, the agency's influential director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), has announced his resignation, effective April 5th, 2025.

“It has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the secretary [RFK Jr.], but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies,” Marks wrote in a letter to acting FDA Commissioner Sara Brenner, a copy of which was obtained by HealthcareInsights.

The abrupt departure of Marks, an individual widely regarded as the driving force behind the FDA's progressive approach to gene and cell therapies, has sent shockwaves through the biotech sector and is raising critical questions about the future of regulatory oversight in United States healthcare.

According to his letter, Marks' exit is not merely a personal decision. He used the occasion to decry the "unprecedented assault on scientific truth" that he felt was impacting public health and was a battle he waged daily against a relentless tide of misinformation from the new DHSS leadership.

Marks, who has led CBER since 2016, has been instrumental in shaping the regulatory landscape for groundbreaking therapies, balancing scientific innovation with patient safety. For over eight years, Marks stood as a bulwark against the rising tide of skepticism, steering CBER through unprecedented medical advancement and public health crises.

Under his leadership, the FDA greenlit landmark gene therapies, marking tangible progress in treating previously intractable diseases. This includes approvals like Yescarta and Luxturna, pioneering treatments for certain cancers and inherited blindness. Marks also spearheaded CBER's efforts to streamline the development of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, playing a crucial role in Operation Warp Speed .

His departure will leave both of the FDA’s principal drug review offices without a permanent leader, following the resignation of Patrizia Cavazzoni, former Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation & Research (CDER), in January.

The implications of Marks' departure are far-reaching, as the FDA grapples with the increasing strain of federal staffing and budget cuts. These constraints have already stretched agency resources, and the loss of a key leader like Marks further exacerbates the challenge of maintaining regulatory efficiency and expertise.

And the departure of such a prominent figure, a figure who stood at the very nexus of scientific rigor and public trust, raises chilling questions about the effect of our current political climate on the very institutions designed to protect us. It’s a reminder that the institutions designed to safeguard public health are increasingly vulnerable to the corrosive influence of political opportunism. The loss of his expertise, a voice of reason in a cacophony of doubt, leaves a void that threatens to undermine the FDA's ability to fulfill its core mission: to protect and promote public health.

The search for Marks' successor becomes a litmus test for the nation's commitment to scientific integrity. In a moment where the very foundations of trust are under siege, the FDA must not only fill a vacancy but also reaffirm its commitment to evidence-based decision-making.

The agency's ability to maintain public trust in vaccine safety and efficacy is now front and center. With Mark's departure, a critical voice has been silenced. As the FDA searches for a successor, American health and science stand at a precipice.

Further Reading:

If you liked this article:

Share this article with your network on LinkedIn with your thoughts or perspectives. Make sure to tag us @HealthcareInsights to join the conversation.
Subscribe to our free newsletter, HealthcareIn Quicktakes. You'll never miss an article, and will get access to exclusive reports.
Check out our library of articles and reports on biotech, healthcare, policy, and business.

Who We Are: At Healthcare Insights, we're covering the transformation of healthcare and bringing our readers the most pertinent takes on key issues in medicine, biotech, healthcare policy, and business. Our Spotlight Series ✦ features thoughts from the most influential figures in healthcare, including Nobel Prize-winning scientists shaping tomorrow's treatments and business leaders bringing new therapies to market. We strive to publish coverage that is authentic, impartial, and independent of any financial or political motive. For more information regarding our editorial standards, read our statement. If you'd like to contact the Editor, use this form to get in touch.

If you'd like to stay in the loop, make sure to subscribe to our free newsletter, HealthcareIn Quicktakes, and follow us @healthcareinsightsny across our social channels, including LinkedIn.

Legal Disclaimer:

The information provided in this article has been collected from various academic publications, industry reports/analyses, regulatory guidelines, media coverage, and legal analyses. The information provided is for general information purposes only and should not be construed for medical, legal, financial, or professional advice. Readers are advised to seek independent professional guidance where relevant. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of our coverage, we claim no liability, representations, or warranties of any kind about the completeness, suitability, accuracy, reliability, authorship, or availability of this article and all pertaining data within this article. Neither the author nor the publication will assume liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of the information provided in the article. The information within this article may be outdated or inaccurate over time, and neither the author nor the publication are obligated to update or revise such information. We reserve the right to modify, remove, or substantially edit the article, including the disclaimer, at any time.