Close
Story Time

My Experience as a STEM Program Planning Assistant

December 20, 2021

For people who are interested in STEM, there are a variety of jobs and experiences you can have. For me, an undergraduate student at Georgia Tech, I think I have an interesting job that goes along with my coursework and other activities. Since it’s a pretty unique position, I thought I’d share my experiences and reflections.

First, I mentioned in the title that I work as a STEM program’s planning assistant. Specifically, I work for the Explore Living Learning Community (LLC) at Georgia Tech, a program for first years where students live together, take similar classes, and get involved in activities hosted by the LLC. These activities include educational events and social opportunities, which are planned and hosted by student assistants who are Tech students too! This LLC focuses on pre-health and research, and most of our students are STEM majors.

I’ve had this position for two semesters now, and I’ve found it a great opportunity to combine my love of STEM with science communication. Paying close attention to what students are interested in then creating engaging and useful events requires STEM knowledge, familiarity with STEM students, and plenty of soft skills that aren’t typically trained as part of a science education. But, they have wide applicability. For instance, you can imagine any of these skills coming in handy whether you’re a scientist applying for a grant or an engineer trying to sell your new invention:

  • Event planning
  • Communication skills with clients, coworkers, and superiors
  • Marketing knowhow

In addition to these soft skills, I’ve been able to take a peek into what the next generation of scientists, engineers, and programmers tick. They want to try new things that may not be directly related to their program of study. They aspire to make professional connections in their field to gain an edge. And, they’re eager to participate in events that will foster their curiosity and intellectual growth. To help them achieve this, our program has done a plethora of activities from paint nights, research networking events, and even a popular Halloween trivia night that I put on.

What touched me most about my work so far is the possibility for students to feel inspired by STEM again. Coming on the third year of the pandemic, a lot of my fellow students feel quite burnt out from school, work, coronavirus, etc. In these circumstances, it’s hard for someone to stay motivated to the demanding area of study that they decided to pursue. But by connecting their areas of study with community, career, and fun, we can bring back in small part that little spark that made us interested in all this in the first place.

One of my first major activities this fall was leading a trip to the Atlanta Zoo. After getting there, most of the students split up into groups to explore the park. I was left with a handful of guys who didn’t seem to have a group to go with. As expected, things were very quiet and shy, and I was a little scared at first that they might not enjoy the experience. After all, how can you stay stony faced when you’re looking straight at an elephant giving itself a dust bath?

But after about an hour, my fears were quelled. They started smiling, laughing, and telling jokes. By lunch, we were thick as thieves. It’s hard to tell what caused this shift. The nice long walk? The cute cool looking animals? The real-world not video call social interaction?

In the reptile exhibit, seeing these previously deadpan students coo and aww over baby turtles, I mused to myself that we’d rediscovered something. One student remarked that after all those exams, seeing them made him feel like everything was okay again. You could see that spark in their eyes, the one that we all had when we were kids and we found something wonderful. After all, it was first our curiosity and sense of wonder that led us to STEM to seek out answers. And can’t we all use a reminder once in a while?

0Likes
About Author

I'm a 3rd year neuroscience major interested in the intersection of science and art! I also like to share my experiences as someone studying an uncommon major.

You May Also Like

Story Time
Diary of an Undergraduate Thesis
Story Time, today i learned (til), vintage science
The Future of Touch: How Neural Networks are Revolutionizing Prosthetics
Story Time
Don’t call me bird-brained!
Story Time
What’s It Like Working in a Mouse Lab?

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.