Why ING Feels Different
By Dan Schell, Chief Editor, Clinical Leader
I have been to enough clinical trial conferences to recognize the familiar formula: hotel ballroom, crowded exhibit hall, packed agenda, and attendees quietly calculating when they can get to the next meeting or reception. The Innovation Network Gathering (ING) was born from frustration with that formula.
During a recent preview of the Oct. 5-8 event in West Chester, PA, ING cofounder Jeff Smith recalled sitting in the basement of a convention hotel surrounded by brilliant people but dealing with bad lighting, mediocre sound, little speaker preparation, and an audience waiting to get to the wine bar. “We’ve got to [create] something that feels really worthy of the people and the ideas that are gathered,” he remembered thinking.
That experience helped inspire an intentionally small, nomination- and invitation-based event. He said the point was never to build the biggest conference, just one that the organizers themselves would want to attend.
Asking More Of The Audience
I attended 2025’s ING, and I assure you the TED talk similarities are there. No multiple tracks, no exhibit hall, just everyone sitting in a cozy performing arts center listening to tightly prepared, and often personal, presentations (watch one of my favs, Michelle Stump-Kerry). But Smith and his team didn’t want to limit the experience to just listening to people with interesting ideas; they wanted to give attendees opportunities to work together and leave with something more than simply inspiration. So, they developed the Dive Teams, which may be the biggest reason I love this event.
Dive Teams are curated working groups, not conventional breakout sessions. Organizers map participants to industry challenges based on both their interests and the expertise they can contribute. Last year, I was invited to participate on a Dive Team with the theme of “From Tactical to Strategic: Establishing Strategic Site Relationships via Effective Governance.” We met offsite on two separate days for 3 hours each. Then, on the final day of the conference, we presented our conclusions/plans to the whole audience back at the main hall. That was 6 hours of intense discussions with a team composed of site, CRO, and sponsor members. That’s not your typical conference experience.
The intent is to produce recommendations or projects that can continue after October. Past ING Dive Team discussions have contributed to a paper published in the Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics and helped connect people working on site burden, interoperability, and better sponsor-site relationships.
Smith was careful not to claim the conference caused every later development. “Nothing happens because of the meeting, but sometimes things happen because of the people who come to the meeting, and sometimes the meeting helps them do that,” he said. That modest distinction makes the ING premise more credible. A conference cannot manufacture change, but it can put the right people shoulder to shoulder and give them a reason to keep working together.
More Than A Startup Pitch
Another attractive component of ING is The WhaleTank, which is a problem-solving forum where founders can engage with potential customers, investors, and industry experts, rather than rush through a pitch and wait to learn whether they won. Sean Lynch of Novartis, who has served as a judge, said its value is the opportunity for “actual human conversation” and honest questions from potential stakeholders. “You just don’t get that time anywhere else,” he said during the ING preview call. George Kramb, CEO of PatientPartner and last year’s WhaleTank winner, offered more persuasive evidence. After his pitch, judges explained what they liked, what they did not, and where they saw holes in his business model. Kramb called that “raw and unfiltered” response from potential buyers “gold” for a founder.
His only regret was trying to conduct business as usual while attending. Kramb booked Zoom calls during last year’s Gathering and later realized how much he had missed. This year, he said he is clearing his schedule, which speaks to the way past attendees view this event — it’s not something you squeeze in amongst other obligations.
A Regulatory Conversation Without The Cameras
Peddicord told me the session grew out of the tension between the industry’s appetite for innovation and the regulatory environment that must make that innovation possible. His panel includes former FDA Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock and Nikita Varman, senior health counsel to Rep. Jake Auchincloss, who is developing broad clinical trial innovation legislation. Organizers also have invited a current senior FDA official, although that participation was still going through the agency’s clearance process when Peddicord and I spoke.
Indeed, there is no shortage of material for such a panel. HHS has discussed Operation TrialBlazer, FDA has requested input on a new expedited IND pathway, Congress is considering clinical trial legislation, and the next Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) reauthorization is approaching. Meanwhile, FDA has been operating under workforce and leadership strain.
During our conversation, Peddicord talked about the non-glamorous but operationally essential topic of how new regulatory ideas become usable. He noted that the traditional process of issuing draft guidance, gathering feedback, revising it, and eventually finalizing it can be painfully slow. Yet the industry relies on that process to understand what a policy means in practice. Announcing a pilot or policy change is “only step one,” he said. But, if that’s being done via a tweet or a social media post, that leads a lot of people who are accustomed to the traditional apparatus to be left wondering what the next step is.
This should be a really interesting panel, although there are so many ways it could go and so many topics it could cover. I don’t envy Peddicord for having to keep it focused for only 20-25 minutes.
ING is asking attendees to examine what is not working in clinical research, contribute their expertise, and have honest conversations about what they might do together. That is a bigger claim than promising a “good” agenda or “useful” networking. Of course, ultimately, the conference will be judged by what survives after attendees leave West Chester.
All I can say is … I’m looking forward to it. Not simply because I’ll hear “better” and “innovative” ideas. But because this show creates the conditions for the right people to do something with those ideas.