Logo and link to home page


Professional Overview

Brief Career Q&A

By day, I’m a full-time medical research professional.


I believe strongly in science and research and the important role they play in bettering our world. It is also a perfect match with my natural talents and interests.

What natural talents would those be?

To be successful in this field, I've found the following qualities to be indispensable:

  • Highly organized in both thought and methodology
  • Able to see the big picture and work toward the overall goal, but just as importantly, have an impeccable attention for detail
  • Solid and deep understanding of research, how to properly ask questions of data and accurately interpret the answers without bias
  • Foresee problems and risks, find solutions and manage a wide variety of situations

What have you done so far?

Graphic of the relationship between study site, CRO, sponsor, and regulatory authorities

My experience over the last 10 years as been in:

  • Pharmaceutical trials
  • Medical device trials
  • North American regulations and institutions
  • European regulations and institutions
  • Investigational Site-side of research
  • CRO-side of research

Which of the above has your preference?

I’m proud of my rounded experience and I’m interested in continuing to broaden my experience. I’d be open to seeing things more from the side of the regulatory and health authorities or ethics committees as well as from the side of the companies who are developing health innovations and sponsoring research on their products.

Will you stay in this field your entire career?

I stay where I’m happy, engaged and given the opportunity to continually learn and grow. I don’t put restrictions on the chances that come my way, and I am willing to try new things.


Don't just take my word for it...
Below are real quotes out of my official evaluations over the last few years. Read on for direct feedback from my line managers and study leads regarding my skills, work ethic, personality and competencies.

Shawna is a pleasure to work with. She is a highly competent PC with an in-depth knowledge of her assigned studies and Medpace procedures. She is happy to take on any task, which she performs to a high standard. Shawna has a professional manner and can interact well with Sponsors and all members of the study team.”
--Bart van Rossum,
2019 year-end evaluation
Shawna is an invaluable member of the project team. She has a great knowledge of both the protocol and the indication. Shawna provides high quality work and her attention to detail is fantastic. She is always thinking one step ahead and foreseeing risks or issues before they arise. She is an asset to the medical device team and can be trusted to work independently. Shawna has also shown she can build good relationships with not just the internal team but also with the Sponsor, who listen and take on board her advice. Shawna is a pleasure to work with.”
--Bart van Rossum,
2019 mid-year review
She always makes time to help out on any ad-hoc request and started to work as a mentor for junior PCs.
Shawna has shown to be a natural communicator, she has led several sponsor calls where she smoothly covered all agenda topics and answered questions asked by sponsor.”
--Frank Keulen & Bart van Rossum,
2018 year-end evaluation
Shawna shows to be a pleasant and valuable team member who is able to efficiently follow-up on and prioritize work across projects. She goes for the extra mile and helps out where/when needed. She has a professional way of communicating, both verbal and written, and actively shares information across study teams. She's a PC who proactively brings ideas forward.”
--Frank Keulen,
2018 mid-year review
Shawna communicates very clearly and concisely within and outside project teams. Shawna understands very well issues/resolutions discussed during client meetings and accurately maps them in the minutes. Shawna is a pleasant and flexible team member who is always eager to learn and perform (new) tasks proactively with a close eye on SOP compliance.”
--Frank Keulen,
2017 evaluation