Building a lab from the ground up: Lessons from Mirna Ghemrawi’s first year

Starting a laboratory is often described in practical terms – equipment, space and protocols. But when Mirna Ghemrawi established her lab at Florida International University in August 2025, it quickly became something much more complex.

It was not just about setting up experiments. It was about building an entire ecosystem – infrastructure, people, administrative processes and a research program – all at the same time.

For scientists taking the same step, her experience offers a realistic and thoughtful look at what it takes to move from idea to operation.

Starting a lab was not entirely new for Mirna. In her previous role, she had already helped design a laboratory space. But moving into a large university environment required a different mindset.

“You cannot always build spaces exactly the way you envision them,” she explains. “You have to work within existing infrastructure and adapt.” 

One of her first priorities was ensuring that the lab could support proper forensic DNA workflows. That meant thinking carefully about contamination control and designing physically separated areas for pre-PCR and post-PCR work.

At the same time, she had to navigate institutional systems – hiring students, purchasing equipment, initiating IRB protocols – each with its own process and timeline.

“The moment the scale really sank in was realizing that building a lab is not just about equipment or experiments,” she says. “It is about building an entire ecosystem.”

Before any experiments could start, Mirna focused on what she calls the “low-hanging fruit.” Her first priority was building the team. She recruited students at different levels – PhD, master’s and undergraduate – each bringing different strengths and perspectives.

From there, she aligned projects with both the lab’s direction and the students’ interests. Early work included continuing projects from her previous role, allowing the team to generate results quickly while learning the workflows.

At the same time, she began developing new research directions, including projects focused on multi-omics approaches in forensic science. Weekly lab meetings became a key part of this process. Discussions of new papers and emerging topics often sparked new ideas and pilot studies.

“I try to prioritize projects that align with the main theme of the lab, while also giving students space to develop their own scientific curiosity.”

In the early phase, Mirna prioritized mindset over highly specific technical skills.

“At the beginning, people need to be adaptable and curious,” she says. “Many things are still evolving.”

She looked for students who were motivated, willing to learn and comfortable working in an environment where processes are still being built. As the lab grows, those priorities naturally shift. Complementary expertise becomes more important – from molecular biology to sequencing technologies and data analysis.

The goal evolves from building a flexible team to building a balanced one.

In a growing lab, training and productivity are often seen as competing priorities. Mirna sees them differently.

“In many ways, training is what makes productivity possible in the long run.”

She starts with close mentorship, helping students understand not just how to run experiments, but why they matter. As confidence grows, she encourages independence and ownership of projects.

Regular lab meetings support this transition by connecting individual work to the broader research direction. When projects are designed to lead to tangible outcomes – datasets, manuscripts or pilot studies – motivation and productivity follow naturally.

When designing the lab, Mirna looked beyond immediate needs and focused on where the field might be heading over the next decade.

“Scientific priorities and funding landscapes change,” she says. “So it is important to build a research program that can evolve.” 

Her approach centers on technologies and questions that are broadly applicable. In forensic bioanalytics, this includes sequencing technologies and multi-omics approaches that can extend beyond forensics into areas like public health, epidemiology and biomarker discovery.

This is where next-generation forensics approaches, such as sequencing-based methods, become important. These technologies enable deeper insights into genetic and epigenetic variation and help extract more information from biological evidence than traditional methods alone.

Rather than focusing on narrow applications, she frames research questions in ways that can apply across multiple contexts – from human identification to population studies.

“The goal is to build a toolkit that can adapt,” she explains.

When evaluating emerging technologies, Mirna asks a simple question: Does this solve a real limitation?

Technologies that only offer incremental improvements may not become foundational. Instead, she focuses on those that expand what is possible – especially those that generate richer datasets and open new research directions.

Another key consideration is whether a technology can realistically integrate into forensic workflows. Scientific potential alone is not enough. Methods must also be validated, standardized and adopted in practice.

For Mirna, versatility is what makes a technology foundational.

Limited budgets are a reality for most new labs, making prioritization critical.

Mirna focuses on identifying equipment that directly supports the lab’s core scientific questions and can be used across multiple projects. Rather than thinking in terms of individual instruments, she considers the entire workflow and how each component contributes to a strong foundation.

She also emphasizes collaboration and resource sharing. Core facilities and neighboring labs can provide access to technologies, allowing new labs to focus their investments where they matter most.

One of the biggest challenges in setting up a lab is underestimating timelines.

Administrative processes – hiring, purchasing, compliance and approvals – often take longer than expected. Another common pitfall is trying to do too much at once. Starting too many ambitious projects without established workflows can slow progress.

Mirna found that focusing on a few well-defined projects helped build momentum and establish good practices early. Infrastructure planning also plays a critical role. In forensic work, where contamination control and workflow design are essential, thoughtful setup prevents problems later.

For forensic laboratories, credibility starts with strong scientific practices.

Mirna focused on establishing clear workflows and quality control measures from the beginning to ensure consistency and reproducibility. She also promotes a strong validation mindset. Students are encouraged to think critically about experimental design, controls and interpretation.

Transparency is another key element. Sharing results through publications, conferences and collaborations allows the broader scientific community to evaluate and build on the work.

“Credibility comes from consistently applying rigorous methods, thoughtful validation and clear communication.”

Mirna’s definition of a well-established lab has evolved over time. At first, it was about infrastructure – equipment, projects and funding. 

Now, it is about people and culture.

“A well-established lab is a place where students think critically, ideas are shared openly and the research has a clear direction.” It is a team that collaborates, a program that evolves and work that contributes beyond the lab itself.

Starting a lab is not a single milestone. It is a process of building, learning and adapting. Mirna’s experience shows that success comes from setting clear priorities, investing in people and designing with the future in mind.

For those beginning this journey, the goal is not just to start a lab – but to build one that continues to grow, adapt and contribute to science over time.