Over the course of his career, Matthew Wenker, MD, has moved from hospital wards to Phase I units and, eventually, to leading research across three Velocity sites in Cincinnati. Along the way, he has been Principal Investigator (PI) or sub-investigator on close to 500 studies. What stands out in the way he talks about that journey is not the volume of work, but how carefully he has considered what his role should be – to his colleagues, to younger investigators, and to the patients and volunteers who join his trials.
In the early part of his career, much of that understanding came from senior physicians who modelled what it meant to be attentive, thorough, and respectful of patients. As his responsibilities grew, his perspective broadened. He became increasingly aware of what his colleagues needed from him, too. Calm leadership, clarity, and someone who took ownership of the work. He is introspective and has clearly thought deeply over the years about what it means to be a PI, coming to the conclusion that it’s a balance of scientific rigor, operational consistency, and respect for the people who participate and work in research.
His path into clinical research began in the mid-2000s, when Medpace was building a Phase I unit in Cincinnati. The unit was still only studs and drywall when he first interviewed, but the opportunity appealed to him. “When I walked into Medpace that first day, a good friend of mine was there, Dr. Logan. If I ever had a mentor in my life, it was him. So I knew I was in the right place when I saw him.”
Over the next several years, Dr. Wenker worked across early-phase studies while practicing hospital medicine. He describes himself as a workaholic, and the hospital’s shift pattern meant he had days to devote to research. “I had a bit of a career change after that,” He recalls, “I started my own medical company and wanted to focus on that, so I left research briefly.”
In 2011, a phone call from the founder of Sterling Research Group (now part of Velocity) coaxed him back to research full-time. The role placed him at the beginning of several therapeutic developments, including the earliest GLP-1 trials, at a time when their role in metabolic health and obesity care wasn’t widely understood. “There was only one GLP-1 back in those days,” Dr. Wenker recalls. “And it was for diabetes. It’s been interesting to see the whole arc.”
His explanation of that arc is striking. He talks as easily about evolutionary biology as clinical endpoints, describing how modern life places people in an environment they were never designed for: unlimited food, limited activity, and deeply ingrained instincts to consume what is available. GLP-1 therapies, he says, help restore a measure of control. “It levels the system out a little bit. It’s really wonderful to see people getting a benefit from these.”
The importance of patient experience and the outcomes of novel therapies come up time and again throughout our conversation. Dr. Wenker sees people skills as central to good clinical practice and research – the ability to walk into a room and immediately understand what version of yourself the person in front of you needs. “A good provider can get someone to open up in a split second,” he says. “It’s a skill that translates directly into research.”
What he values most is the quality of those interactions. Research feels different from his years in hospital medicine, not because the work is easier, but because the conversations carry a different weight. Participants arrive wanting to be there, curious about the trial, hopeful about the results. “It’s a happy job,” he says. “People are having a good experience. They usually want to come back.” For him, that willingness says something important about how research is delivered: if people feel respected, they stay engaged.
He brings the same people-first instinct to his colleagues as he does to participants. His approach has been shaped in no small part by the mentors who influenced his early career and strengthened by years of working across different teams and study environments. It has led to a way of working that is consistent and reliable — and, in his view, the right foundation for research. An approach that supports both the people who take part and the people who deliver it.
