My Unexpected Journey in a Psychology Lab: A Pre-Med Perspective

By Junaid Rasool

When I first started looking for labs, I never imagined I would end up in a psychology lab. 

As a traditional neuroscience student, my sights were set on bench research: injecting mice, pipetting chemicals, and reading DNA gel electrophoresis. My biology and chemistry classes prepared me for this, and I was excited to finally contribute to science. I interviewed at a neuroscience lab studying pain, a field directly related to medicine. I nailed the interview by leveraging the knowledge from my classes, secured the position, and was set to start during the summer before my junior year. Everything seemed perfect.

I was too focused on what thought medical schools wanted … I’ve learned the value of stepping out of my comfort zone and embracing new experiences.

Junaid Rasool

But life had other plans. My mom unexpectedly needed eye surgery, so I returned to Austin, TX, to care for her. By the time I came back to UTD in the fall, my position in the lab had been filled. I was back to square one. As I searched for new opportunities, this psychology lab reached out to me. Initially, I had doubts. I didn’t see how this would align with my professional goals, but I decided to give it a try.

My journey with the lab began with guiding participants through experiments, attending lab meetings, and writing protocols. I also got hands-on experience using psychophysiological equipment— eye trackers for measuring visual attention, and electrodes for measuring skin conductance and heart rate. However, I still wasn’t entirely sure how this research fit into my career goals. It seemed far removed from the traditional pre-med path I had envisioned.

I decided to do an honors thesis to gain additional responsibility, hoping to find more clarity and purpose. The learning curve was steep, and I often questioned how these tasks would benefit me in the long run. However, I eventually got the hang of things and became more comfortable with the research process. I even learned to code in R and Python, gaining transferable data analysis skills that will benefit any type of research and give me a leg up in medical school and beyond.

I found I was too focused on what thought medical schools wanted: publications, wet lab research, and in-depth molecular studies. While these are important, I’ve learned the value of stepping out of my comfort zone and embracing new experiences. When I got the chance to lead my own project, I took it, even though I didn’t know the experimental software or how to code. Thankfully, a PhD student named Galston and my mentor, Israel, stepped in to help. They both took time out of their day to walk me through the code and software, explaining everything clearly and making sure I understood. I believe the best way to learn is by jumping in, and their support equipped me to tackle the project confidently.

One of the most rewarding aspects of the Aging Well Lab is the supportive and collaborative culture. In the competitive world of pre-meds, it’s rare to find such a welcoming group of people. I’ve made friends and found mentors who genuinely want to help each other succeed. This positive environment has been a breath of fresh air.

My research exploring human behavior and decision-making has illuminated the intersection of politics and trust, and I see application for this in healthcare. For instance, healthcare areas such as vaccination campaigns, pandemic response, gun violence, and reproductive health have become increasingly politicized and surrounded by misinformation. As a future physician, I plan to use my research insights to collaborate with trusted figures across the political spectrum to disseminate accurate medical information. By doing this, I hope to bridge political divides, enhance public health communications, and improve patient outcomes. 

Additionally, one of my current projects delves into how people weigh risks and benefits in effort expenditure when faced with uncertain information. This research is essential for informing future pandemic responses, as evidenced by behaviors observed during the COVID-19 pandemic such as mask-wearing, vaccination acceptance, and adherence to social distancing guidelines. By understanding these decision-making processes, I aim to develop strategies that promote safer behaviors and improve public health outcomes. Overall, the research I’ve done in this lab has inspired me to pursue a future in health policy alongside my medical career, helping to clarify my goals in medicine.

My experience in the Aging Well Lab broadened my perspective on healthcare, equipped me with valuable skills, and connected me with an amazing community. If you’re a pre-med student, I encourage you to explore opportunities you might not have considered. You never know where they might lead.


Finding My Place as a Nontraditional Student

Five years ago, I had a good thing going – an established career with steady income, regular hours, no major debt, and plenty of free time to hang out with friends. But it felt like something was missing; I was unfulfilled at the end of my days. After 14 years with one company, it was time for a change. The question was, do I stay in my field or turn my life upside down?

I knew at the ripe old age of 14 that I wanted to be a journalist, connecting people to information. My plan was etched, and I worked diligently toward that goal. Along the way, friends told me I should have gone into biology, but I thought they were joking. There’s no way I was smart enough to go into the sciences. 

In my mid-thirties, I discovered “edutainment.” I almost exclusively watched shows investigating life, like Blue PlanetVeritasiumBrain GamesThe Nine Months that Made YouCosmos, etc. I widened my reading material to include scientific articles and books. So, when my husband said, “You should have gone into biology,” my curiosity was piqued. Maybe I should give this biology thing a try.

At 37, I enrolled in chemistry at a community college. My class was at night, and my classmates were mostly working adults like myself, trying to better their lives. I felt a kindred connection with these students; we were all searching for something more.

My next group of classes were in the morning, with more “traditional” college students. I felt out of place in a room teeming with youth. In one class, we worked in groups; I was partnered with a 17- and 18-year-old. During a lull in lecture, my group members were looking at their phones. I asked if they were reading the news, and they looked at me like I was crazy. No, they were watching videos of people flipping their shoes. I’ve never felt so old and removed.

Image by pch.vector on Freepik

But I ventured forth, transferring to UT Dallas to continue my degree, managing to find the one or two older classmates with whom I had more in common but still feeling very alone. Four-year universities are designed with the full-time student in mind. As a working adult, I struggled to fit education, work, and life into a manageable ball of frenzy. 

At the same time, I changed jobs and began working at a pathology lab. I went from an assistant newsroom supervisor with all the answers and autonomy to a part-time newbie in an industry I knew nothing about and zero authority. I was supremely vulnerable, and I hated it. I didn’t know how to not be in charge; I didn’t even know I liked being in charge until I had given it up. I also discovered I didn’t know how to learn and give myself grace when embarking on a challenge. Yes, taking classes at the community college was new, but I had the steady familiarity of my job. Then, there I was, at 39, restarting my journey from scratch.

Like an ogre laying siege, in walked imposter syndrome. I wasn’t a “real” student or scientist, and one day everyone was going to find out I’m from the liberal arts, playing dress up in a lab coat and scrubs. I didn’t look or behave like my classmates, and I’m pretty sure I was older than a few of my professors. I was married, with a mortgage, and more than a decade of the corporate world under my belt. I didn’t understand my classmates who whined about not getting extensions on assignments or who asked questions about topics easily found in the syllabus. In a lecture hall of 300, I was the ancient sea turtle flapping through the current, trying to find my way.

When I did poorly in class, I berated myself – I should have stayed in my lane. Why did I think I could do this? I was right all those years ago; I’m not smart enough to be in the sciences. Friends and family patiently listened to my bemoans, but it was their awe in my struggle that kept me going. Plus, I’m stubborn. Getting through my classes was like scaling a climbing wall. I purposefully planned my path – read the textbook, read the lecture slides, go to class, take handwritten notes, reread the lecture slides, and meticulously fill out a study guide. The last-minute and late-night cramming sessions of my youth were no good to me. Structure and scheduling became my recipe for success. It also eased my anxieties to see fellow classmates struggle. I wasn’t dumb; this material was difficult.

When I landed at the Aging Well Lab, I felt grounded. I joined a handful of other nontraditional students, past and present, who could understand my feelings of wanting more. Here, I am not lost, not a misfit; instead, I bring experience and diversity, a background rich in different thought processes and methods. I can be a scientist and a journalist, a bridge to the world outside of academia. This makes me an asset, not someone going through a very expensive mid-life crisis. It’s hard to play the role of imposter when the aspects I’m trying to hide are the very things desired and appreciated.

How the Replication Crisis Led to Open Science

Remember those basic concepts you learned for the grade-school science fair? Well, I’m going to let you in on a little secret: many of them are used in university-level research. For example, I remember hearing about students replicating their previous year’s projects in middle school and high school. At the time, it felt pointless. What more could you learn from repeating something you’ve already done before?

This was definitely due to my childhood bias against science fair. Every year it felt like I was just making up a project and not actually learning anything. Science fair was mandatory until 9th grade, so high schoolers choosing to build on existing projects seemed like a monumental waste of time. Thankfully, pursuing science in college changed my perspective.

College-level science classes are chock full of research articles, all of which follow a standardized format. For instance, authors use the introduction section to cite background research and explain the purpose of their study. Over time, I recognized researchers citing their own previous publications in the introduction. It’s like adult version of replicating a science fair project, but this time I could read an explanation about why the replication was necessary. Uncovering a new scientific concept is exciting, but its significance may dissipate if others can’t get similar results. Whether it’s science fair or academic research, repetition is necessary to cement the validity and importance of an experiment’s outcome.

The Replication Crisis

270 psychologists in the early 2010s replicated 100 studies from 2008, drawing inspiration from replication attempts in cell biology.1 The biology replications faced issues, including insufficient details about the procedure and results, leading to successful replications less than 25% of the time. The psychologists tried circumventing this, often by collaborating with the original papers’ authors, but they maintained that “a large portion of replications produced weaker evidence for the original findings.”

Despite having the necessary background knowledge, combing through the original publications, contacting the respective researchers, and replicating each experiment to the best of their ability, they still wound up with largely inconclusive results. 

This was from only one year of psychology publications.

Low replication rates aren’t restricted to the natural sciences, either. In 2015, the US Federal Reserve Board examined 59 publications from 13 influential economics journals.2 Again, despite assistance from the original authors, only 29 studies (49%) had successful replications. Seeing differences between a study’s original results and a replication’s results is possible, but poor replication rates, year over year, across disciplines suggests a deeper, systemic problem. This issue, referred to as the replication crisis, likely stems from the widespread use of questionable research practices (QRPs).

Lemonade vs. Iced Tea 

Let’s say I went to a nearby park and asked about 100 people if they prefer lemonade or iced tea. I hypothesized lemonade would be the more popular choice since everyone I know prefers lemonade. 

The first 10 people were split down the middle, with 5 picking lemonade and 5 choosing iced tea. Definitely not what I was expecting. A few minutes later, 10 soccer players from a nearby game ran up and all chose lemonade. Now, out of 20 people total, only 5 picked iced tea! Satisfied with the results of my small sample, I packed up my things and headed home.

This is an example of two QRPs: confirmation bias and optional stopping. I used the soccer players’ choices as confirmation that my hypothesis (based on my bias towards lemonade) was correct even though the first 10 people were split half and half. Stopping my experiment before reaching 100 people lead to a false positive conclusion, so replication with a new sample of 20 people may yield different results.

Jess’s Replication

I told my friend Jess about my experiment, and she had some issues with my methods. Her family’s annual reunion was around the corner, and they anticipated about 100 people in attendance; the perfect opportunity for Jess to replicate my study with the appropriate sample size. 

Caught up in organizing the reunion, she decided not to waste time coming up with a hypothesis. Handing out drinks and logging the data on her phone would be good enough, right? After everyone went home, she looked at her results and noticed that about 70 people chose iced tea and 30 people chose lemonade. 

Jess marched over to my house the next day claiming her larger sample size supported her hypothesis about people preferring iced tea. Annoyed by how smug she looked, I probed her for more information and learned that she also engaged in a QRP: hypothesizing after her results were known (HARKing). Jess asserted that her results supported her hypothesis even though she didn’t have one before collecting data.

Implementation of HARKing, optional stopping, and other QRPs resulted in many published papers with positive, statistically significant results having little to no significance when replicated. Conducting research with as much transparency as possible not only reduces the chance of a researcher using QRPs, but also makes it immensely easier to replicate studies. Luckily, open science addresses this exact issue.

The Solution

At its core, the open science movement strives to “increase openness, integrity, and reproducibility” in published research.4 One of the first steps in the open science process is preregistration: researchers use an online platform to log their hypotheses, study protocol, and anticipated statistical analyses before collecting data. All preregistered information has the date and time of submission and is accessible to peer-reviewers as well as other professionals in the field. Additionally, researchers can upload a preprint of their article—an accessible, near-final version of their paper before it’s peer-reviewed for publication. 

Widespread use of open science methods at the time of the psychology, biology, and economics replication studies may have led to a higher likelihood of obtaining results similar to the original papers. All that accessible information clarifies the experimental process for everyone involved and ensures that studies are conducted as honestly as possible.

All that said, just because a replication (or replications) led to different results doesn’t always mean that the initial conclusions were incorrect; science is imperfect, and differences in results could stem from a multitude of variables. At the end of the day, it’s important to remember that the goal of research isn’t to be right, it’s to uncover the truth behind things we can’t yet explain. Unexpected results may spur new research questions and lead to advancements of equal or greater importance. Addressing the replication crisis with open science is still relatively new but it’s a fantastic start to maintaining scientific integrity in the modern era.


References and related websites
  1. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
  2. Is Economics Research Replicable? Sixty Published Papers from Thirteen Journals Say “Usually Not”
  3. Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
  4. Center for Open Science Mission Page
  5. PLOS Open Science Page
  6. Vox Unexplainable article and podcast on the psychology replication crisis