Ashley Krull, PhD
ISCT Lab Practices Committee Co-Chair
Contributing Editor, ISCT Telegraft
The Ohio State University
United States
The 2025 Cell Therapy Leadership Training Program - ISCT Workforce Development brought together 15 scholars from around the world for an intensive week of lectures, case studies, mentorship, and site-based learning focused on the full pipeline of cell and gene therapy (CGT) development. Across six detailed participant responses, a clear picture emerges: this was not simply a content-rich program. It was a confidence-building, relationship-forming, career-sharpening experience that helped early-stage and emerging leaders translate scientific ambition into practical, regulatory-ready action.
Several scholars arrived expecting strong content but then left surprised by the depth of mentorship, access to faculty, and the supportive culture. Pierre Springuel (University College London) anticipated a more traditional format: “I expected the week to consist mostly of standard, university-style theoretical lectures.” What stood out instead was the interactive learning environment and peer exchange: “What truly surprised me was how much opportunity we had to discuss, engage, network, and learn not only from the faculty members, but also from the other scholars attending the course.” Madeline Lauener (City of Hope) captured the emotional arc many high-achieving trainees feel when entering an elite room. She described coming in with “some imposter syndrome,” but being struck by how “humble, collaborative, and genuinely supportive everyone was.” This sense of belonging and shared mission appears to be a defining feature of the CTTC’s impact. Gaby Lizana-Vasquez (Biocytics) broadened this sentiment into a statement about professional identity and community. She was impressed by “the warmth and approachability displayed by all participants,” noting that the week reaffirmed her belief that ISCT is “not merely a professional organization but, in fact, a genuine community of compassionate and committed individuals.”
A major theme across responses was the immediate applicability of skills gained, particularly in regulatory thinking, CMC strategy, experiment design, and risk-based decision-making. Springuel highlighted a shift in how he plans to approach manufacturing challenges using “a risk-based framework to break problems down logically, assess the risks systematically, and using that structure to guide how I address and resolve them.” Zachary D. Crees (Washington University in St. Louis) focused on the leap of moving from strong science into translational readiness that many investigators struggle with. The course, he said, provided “a much more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the regulatory framework around clinical trial development,” especially for “making that initial leap from bench-to-bedside.” Lizana-Vasquez emphasized the completeness of pipeline exposure: the course offered “a comprehensive understanding of the complete range of cell and gene therapies, from the initial stages of discovery to the processes of commercialization,” helping her “design experiments with greater efficacy and to clearly define the Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) parameters.”
For Júlia Teixeira Cottas de Azevedo (Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Brazil), the value was in both breadth and depth. She expected coverage of the key CGT domains and found the course “not only comprehensive but also delivered in-depth knowledge in each of these areas,” describing it as “perfectly balanced and supported by highly skilled speakers.” Nour Shobaki (University of Pennsylvania) gave perhaps the most expansive view of skill gain, noting growth across modalities, from IND study report writing to endpoint strategy and adverse event planning. The course strengthened her ability to connect “small-scale to large-scale studies” while improving readiness for clinical trial planning and big-picture leadership thinking.
While formal leadership sessions were valued, scholars also emphasized that leadership was taught through daily interaction and modeling. Crees shared a memorable principle from faculty members, Dr. Dave DiGuisto, PhD, and Dr. Bruce Levine, PhD: “Leadership and accomplishment can be measured by the success of [one’s] mentees.” He noted that this tenet, echoed throughout the week, reflected the “generous mentorship” he experienced. Lauener similarly framed mentorship as central, not optional, adding that leadership and mentorship are “foundational to building a meaningful and impactful career.”
De Azevedo captured the experiential nature of leadership learning. She noted that although a dedicated discussion was “extremely enriching,” it was “the daily interaction with the Planning Faculty… that truly taught us, in practice, what it means to be a leader.” Shobaki translated this into actionable habits, identifying “staying organized and intentional,” maintaining documentation, and proactively building connections as core practices that “strengthen team performance and cultivate a positive, collaborative environment.”
A subtle but powerful thread across responses was learning how to prioritize what truly enables translation without losing scientific rigor. Crees described a key change to his project, separating what is “scientifically interesting” from what is “pivotal for translational development,” a mental model that helped him refine timelines and milestones. Lauener voiced a complementary realization about trial design: the importance to not “over-science” or “over-research” every detail, since perfectionism can delay therapies reaching patients. She left more committed to balancing “strong scientific rationale and efficient forward progress.”
Across multiple responses, the week’s favorite one-liner was “It depends.” Shobaki also captured two complementary regulatory truths that clearly resonated with scholars: “If it’s not documented, it didn’t happen.” and “The FDA are not consultants.”
The scholars were nearly unanimous in encouraging future applicants to prepare early and engage fully. De Azevedo advised watching the online pre-course content: “They were truly very important.” Lauener recommended doing the readings and arriving with targeted questions tied to one’s own work. Springuel emphasized being proactive in both faculty engagement and peer networking: “don’t be shy!” and “take full advantage of the opportunity to connect and discuss your project with the other scholars.” Crees’ message was simple and enthusiastic: “Definitely apply!! Also, don’t forget to make connections with your peer-scholars…” Shobaki echoed this emphasis on focus and relationship-building, encouraging future participants to “engage confidently,” ask questions, and treat the course “as a powerful learning opportunity that can shape your future work.”
Taken together, these six perspectives suggest that the ISCT CTTC offers something rare: a tightly organized curriculum spanning discovery through commercialization, paired with sustained mentorship and a culture of practical honesty. Lauener noted, “[The faculty’s] approachability encouraged meaningful discussion, and their willingness to provide tailored advice made the learning feel highly personalized.” Scholars repeatedly described feeling both professionally advanced and personally supported, leaving with sharper regulatory instincts, more disciplined translational prioritization, and a clearer understanding of what effective leadership looks like in real time.
Springuel summarized with gratitude what “was truly the highlight of my academic career so far.” He expressed that having “uninterrupted access to the faculty for an entire week” and experiencing their “approachability, support, and genuine commitment” made this “an amazing week of learning.”
#CommunityFeature