Modern medicine is greatly impacted by the use of emergent technologies to diagnose and treat disease processes at the molecular level ‐from rapid sequencing of human genomes to remarkable progress from genome‐wide association studies. The potential for genetics and genomics to provide personalized approaches for diagnosing and treating human disease in the clinical setting is imminent. How can we prepare undergraduate students to fully engage these issues at the forefront of molecular medicine? We designed a course‐based undergraduate research experience (CURE) for an upper‐division molecular biology course illustrating the use of personalized medicine in the problem of breast cancer. Students experimentally and computationally analyzed the transcriptome of biopsied human breast cancer tissue using DNA microarrays, and determined a molecular diagnosis and prognosis for the patient. Synthesizing clinical pathological data with gene expression data, students reproducibly sub‐typed breast tumors as ER+/− and/or HER2+/− and BRCA1‐2 +/−, and determined a prognostic “fingerprint” for the patient. The experience culminated in a mock molecular tumor board event, wherein students role‐played as physicians to create a recommendation for personalized chemotherapy. In addition to measuring cognitive outcomes, we report the extent to which this CURE impacted non‐cognitive student outcomes.The module's efficacy was evaluated in terms of five design elements ‐ the degree to which students (1) made novel scientific discoveries, (2) iterated and revised work, (3) collaborated with peers, (4) owned the project, and (5) gained confidence as a scientist. The Laboratory Course Assessment Survey (LCAS) and Project Ownership Survey (POS) indicated significant gains in aggregated measures of collaboration (T‐test, p<0.001) and project ownership (T‐test, p=0.004). In addition, pre‐post analysis of measures of science self‐efficacy and attitude indicated a favorable shift as a result of the course (CLASS‐BIO, T‐test, p=0.01), with significant gains in student self‐reported intention to pursue a science‐related research career (T‐test, p=0.01). Interestingly, these affective gains are not associated with the degree to which students make novel scientific contributions (T‐test, p=.28) or iterate the investigative process (T‐test, p=.53 for aggregated measures). Content analysis of open‐ended student comments corroborated survey results, and emphasized appreciation for the applicability of the course to societal issues and decision‐making. Together these data suggest that CURE design elements that include highly relevant proof‐of‐concept inquiry can be as effective as CURES centered on original research and iteration, signifying an alternative pathway toward increased science identity, career clarification, and persistence in science.