Close
Story Time

Diary of a Mad Grad Student #1

April 27, 2023

In my stress over grad school and figuring out what my life will look like, I’ve been asking myself questions about my goals and my thoughts about existing as an underrepresented minority in academia. Hopefully, putting my thoughts out there will help other students in a similar place feel less alone and reflect on their role as a scientist. You could call this the first public entry of my diary or a grad student’s soliloquy (without the dramatics of a theater show).

What made me think about writing this in the first place was realizing that I’ve been losing a lot of motivation to finish this first semester of grad school. Even though I put in a ton of work to get to this point and still have big career goals to fill, I keep being reminded of the people who told me that I would fail. The professors that told me, “I’d get kicked out in the first semester,” or “I’m not adequate enough to be a graduate student,” are still stuck in my brain every day that I go to lab and class, and I can’t seem to shake those doubts away in my highs and lows of the semester.

To get that motivation back, I started to think about how I’ve been doing everything I can to survive and push to the next day, but I haven’t been doing the work to make myself thrive. It brought me back to the question of why I love science. What pushes me not just to do what I need to finish my Master’s but to enjoy every day of it? Looking back to how others in positions of power treated me during my undergrad journey, throughout the grad school application process, and even now, I mainly had been forcing myself to finish everything I could out of spite to prove the doubters wrong. I would not only show them that I did it and finished it even when I thought I couldn’t but also tell the little voice in my head that I didn’t have to worry about anything. I am intelligent, capable, and a real scientist, even when they made me feel like I wasn’t. But now that I’ve become a grad student and I don’t have to see these people anytime soon (hopefully, it’s a small campus, after all), I’ve started making solid strides toward prioritizing my mental health and fighting the imposter syndrome and negative thoughts that come in my head. 

My most significant step was to begin counseling, which felt like I was going into an unknown world. It was something I wanted to start during my undergrad, but I didn’t have the time or resources for it, so now, as a grad student with a consistent income, I decided it was time to take that leap! With my counselor, I’ve had more profound reflections and conversations about some of the roots of my imposter syndrome. Not only have I gained a better perspective on how I view the world around me, but I’ve also been able to treat myself better than I have in the last few years. 

There are so many things that my counselor and I have talked about that I could use to show the depth of what I learned, but I think these questions I was asked can give a glimpse of how I’ve been able to grow and move forward. If you’re reading this and have been trying to push yourself to complete your thesis, degree or even get up in the morning, I urge you to reflect on some of these questions. If you have the resources, I would suggest expanding on these questions and ones you’ve been asking yourself in some mental health counseling.

  • How can I better support myself as I finish my M.S. and begin to hit roadblocks in my research? 
  • What is the bigger picture of my work? Does it excite me to go to the lab and work towards completing my thesis?
  • How can I take ownership of my thesis and create a story that will bring new knowledge and understanding to the communities my work will reach? Another question I ended up asking myself while reflecting on this is how can I take myself out of my comfort zone in my project, and have I ever taken myself out of this comfort zone? 

These questions and my responses to them will likely change throughout my program (as my career goals and my thesis grows). Still, they have reminded me why I became a grad student in the first place and what drives me to become a better researcher and science communicator. I’ve been able to recenter myself, and I’m proud to say that I’m proud of the work I’ve put in so far, and I’m excited for what the next year will hold for me.

 

Sincerely,

A Mad (but Motivated) Grad Student

Tags:
0Likes
About Author

Hi, y'all!

I'm Jalen, a Master's student studying Materials Science and Engineering at Georgia Tech! As part of my thesis, I'm researching different ways to build organic cells. I'm a part of Charged Magazine because I want to show my love of science through articles, videos, and interviews. I also hope to educate people about multiple facets of diversity in STEM.

You May Also Like

Articles, Story Time
A Letter to Fellow Struggling Students
Story Time
The Devil Wears Science Journey
Story Time, today i learned (til)
A Tiny Frog with a Mighty Voice – The Puerto Rican Coqui
Story Time
Atlanta Science Festival – The Amazing Race

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.