SGC introduced me to new ideas and ways of thinking that I can apply in future scientific endeavors. Throughout my time as a scholar, we learned thoroughly about the nature of science, how it can be communicated, and how it can be used for good. This training in the foundations of scientific practice has shaped how I approach problems in both academic and research settings.
During my internship at Inova, I engaged in a project that analyzed how patient care was managed for individuals with hereditary mutation diagnoses. This study compared records of patients within a specialized center for hereditary cancers with those from the general hospital population. Throughout the project, we observed patterns that prompted new hypotheses and encouraged us to test these theories by systematically monitoring specific details in the study. One important observation was the absence of detailed documentation regarding hereditary cancer monitoring in providers’ notes outside the specialized center. Within the center, providers consistently updated records on patient screening, whereas in the general hospital population, relevant screenings were often unrecorded. We hypothesized that this pattern would extend to the larger population of approximately 2,000 patients involved in the study. To refine our research, we added a focus on monitoring updates related to hereditary cancer syndrome screening. This experience helped me understand that an initial hypothesis is rarely fixed and must be refined as new observations emerge, reflecting the changing iterative of the hypothetico-deductive method that SGC emphasized.
My SGC training also improved my ability to recognize logical fallacies and flawed reasoning, which I often observed in my academic environment, particularly in chemistry courses such as Organic Chemistry 1 and 2 and General Chemistry 2. After exams, group chats among classmates were filled with quick judgments and interpretations of performance. For example, I often saw students post statements like, “I failed the first question, so I’m definitely going to fail the whole class,” which is a classic slippery slope fallacy. Others would cherry-pick examples to justify their frustrations, saying, “Look at all the people complaining, everyone says this exam was impossible,” ignoring the many peers who did well. There were also comments like, “The professor hates us, that’s why the test was unfair,” an ad hominem attack, and arguments such as, “Everyone says Ochem 2 is impossible, so it must be true,” reflecting the bandwagon fallacy. These examples demonstrated how easily flawed reasoning can spread when people fail to evaluate evidence critically. SGC taught me to analyze claims using the tools of the scientific method, consider all relevant data, and avoid letting emotions or peer pressure dictate conclusions. As a result, I became better at approaching my own academic challenges logically, focusing on strategies supported by evidence rather than on assumptions or anecdotal reports.
Key components of SGC have been particularly useful in helping me connect to my major and future career in neuroscience and premed, one of which is Sagan’s toolkit. One of the most impactful parts of learning about Sagan’s toolkit was “Avoid Distractions.” Each of the components of this section felt like words to live by for someone who wants to engage in the scientific, or even logical, world. The components of this were: honest skepticism, substantive debate by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view, and the idea that there are no true authority figures. These principles have been invaluable in my current research lab, where we are conducting a study examining laterality through EEG. Laterality is a field with competing theories about the roles of the two brain hemispheres, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each claim is essential. Applying honest skepticism allows me to critically evaluate previous studies and avoid taking any single study as definitive. Engaging in substantive debate helps me to analyze papers I may take into consideration to not only include viewpoints of contradictory proponents but also to avoid content that wouldn’t be substantive. Recognizing that there are no true authority figures encourages us to question assumptions in the literature, which is essential in a field where multiple competing theories exist. This toolkit has helped me approach data analysis more systematically.
Another SGC component that has helped me is GEOL204: The Fossil Record. This course emphasized how scientists reconstruct events and life forms from the prehistoric past using different forms of evidence such as datasets, plots, and charts. The focus on how scientists reach their conclusions, instead of memorizing facts, strengthened my analytical skills and taught me to consider multiple lines of evidence before forming a conclusion. Much of the work for this class was analyzing different kinds of data to answer questions as well as present on papers after thoroughly learning about a subject. This practice of parsing through data and receiving it from multiple sources will be helpful in future endeavors in medicine and research as both are fields that require such skills.
Being part of a living learning community in SGC helped me to have access to peers who shared similar academic interests. In many challenging classes, such as Organic Chemistry and math courses, I made friends through SGC who became my study partners, even in courses we were no longer taking together. These relationships created groups that made difficult coursework more manageable as we could support each other. Beyond academics, working with peers on new skills, such as creating HTML webpages, was especially helpful because we could learn together and help each other where we got stuck.
I have actively contributed to the SGC community through helping my peers by sharing opportunities I encountered. For example, when I discovered events, internships, or programs that aligned with my interests, I encouraged other SGC scholars I was friends with to join or explore them alongside me. I joined or explored several different clubs with friends I made in the program and today we are still members of some of these groups.
Over the past three semesters, my SGC experience exposed me to new ideas and perspectives from people in majors I wouldn't typically encounter. My coursework results in me typically sharing classes with other neuroscience majors or those on a pre-med track. I got to interact with people in math, business, and other science majors. I learned about opportunities they sought or experiences they had to inform me on decisions on future involvement on campus. Many of these people had differing ideas of what they wanted to pursue after college or their timeline for graduating. I had previously thought that research was something that mainly upperclassmen were involved in or had access too, but after some peers in other STEM fields had opportunities with this, I started pursuing research labs that interested me. Thus, this experience led me to learn more about how I could gain knowledge about my field and encouraged me to seek positions I didn’t know I was capable of.
SGC has influenced my future by preparing me for the demands of upper-level science courses, research, and eventually medical school. Interactions with peers and faculty taught me the anatomy of a scientific paper, helped me practice applying Sagan’s toolkit in evaluating evidence and theories, and trained me to recognize logical fallacies in scientific arguments. These skills are critical for navigating increasingly complex scientific literature, conducting research ethically, and making informed decisions as a future physician. By cultivating habits of rigorous analysis, critical thinking, and evidence-based reasoning, SGC has laid the groundwork for my academic success and professional development in neuroscience and premed studies.