Dan Schell articles

  1. What I Heard When I Crashed Three ING Dive Teams 10/13/2026

    After attending three Innovation Network Gathering Dive Teams, Chief Editor Dan Schell shares what he heard about accelerating study startup, rethinking investigator meetings, and leading through AI adoption—along with a reminder that promising ideas still need stakeholder support, measurable evidence, and practical execution.

  2. Can We Make Feasibility More Realistic? 10/8/2026

    Drawn from a Clinical Leader Live webinar, this article explores how sponsors can make clinical trial feasibility and enrollment forecasts more realistic by questioning data sources, examining patient and site burdens, challenging protocol assumptions, and looking beyond seemingly convincing answers from historical data and AI.

  3. With CROs, Decide What You Can Actually Manage 10/1/2026

    Industry veteran Peter Fredette explores how small biotechs can rethink CRO outsourcing by balancing cost, operational needs, and internal oversight. Before choosing a CRO model, sponsors must honestly assess which services they need — and how many partners they can realistically manage.

  4. Small Biotech Can Outsource The Work, But Not The Thinking 9/24/2026

    Robert Goldman explains why small biotechs can outsource clinical trial work—but never accountability. His advice on CRO oversight and responsible AI adoption shows how lean sponsors can gain efficiency without surrendering the judgment needed to spot risks and protect their programs.

  5. Before Adding AI, Fix The Process 9/17/2026

    Regeneron’s Kaniel Cassady argues that “doing more with less” in clinical development should start with questioning existing processes, unnecessary data collection, and outdated workflows before turning to AI and other new technologies.

  6. Why ING Feels Different 9/11/2026

    I’ve attended enough clinical trial conferences to know how similar they can feel. ING is different. Its Dive Teams, WhaleTank, and candid conversations are designed to get attendees participating, not just listening. This year, I’m especially interested in an off-the-record regulatory panel that could tackle some of the biggest changes facing clinical research.

  7. What SIP Gets Right And Where It Still Falls Short 9/4/2026

    SIP users Sophie Haynes and Vicki Alvarez identify features that provide value but question whether the platform eliminates enough work to justify its setup demands, repetitive processes, and usability challenges.

  8. The SIP Problem Is Bigger Than SIP 9/1/2026

    Sites continue to struggle with duplicated administrative work across too many sponsor and CRO systems. Current SIP users cite real frustrations with the platform, but their experiences also suggest the original goal of a shared, standardized site-information system remains highly relevant.

  9. Building SIP Was The Hard Part 8/26/2026

    Charlie Semenchuk and Jeff Ventimiglia helped turn the ambitious vision for the Shared Investigator Platform into reality. They look back at SIP’s technical challenges, competing stakeholder needs, site burden, and what the experience can still teach an industry wrestling with many of the same problems today.

  10. The Big Idea Behind The Creation Of SIP 8/20/2026

    Jackie Kent, Lisa Moneymaker, and Jeanette Teague were among the early architects of the Shared Investigator Platform (SIP). In part one of this four-part series, they discuss SIP’s ambitious origins, the challenges of getting competing sponsors to collaborate, and why broad adoption was critical to delivering on its promise of reducing site burden.