Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have been shown to lead to multiple student benefits, but much is unknown about how CUREs lead to specific student outcomes. In this study, we examined the extent to which students making "broadly relevant novel discoveries" impacted student project ownership by comparing the experiences of students in a CURE and a traditional lab course. The CURE and traditional lab were similar in most aspects; students were exposed to an identical curriculum taught by the same instructor. However, there was one major difference between the two types of courses: the type of data that the students produced. Students in the traditional lab characterized the immune system of wild-type mice, thereby confirming results already known to the scientific community, while students in the CURE characterized the immune system of a mutant strain of mice, which produced broadly relevant novel discoveries. Compared with traditional lab students, CURE students reported higher cognitive and emotional ownership over their projects. Students' perceptions of collaboration and making broadly relevant novel discoveries were significantly and positively related to their cognitive and emotional ownership. This work provides insight into the importance of integrating opportunities for broadly relevant novel discoveries in lab courses.