Laboratory learning in the life sciences is historically centered around following recipe-like instructions to complete activities with defined outcomes. The American Association for the Advancement of Science's "Vision and Change" report has called for a change in science teaching. The report emphasizes the importance of providing research experiences for students and the need to foster discovery, collaboration, and communication of science by students. In recent years, the course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) has been introduced into science pedagogy. CUREs provide authentic, inquiry-based research experiences to undergraduate students from all backgrounds. There is evidence that CUREs produce students who have more concrete science identities, improved interdisciplinary collaboration and communication skills, and better understanding of the process of doing science compared with traditional courses. Students who participate in CUREs may be more likely than students without an authentic research experience to continue in the sciences. CUREs are often offered as single courses, but multi-semester CUREs increase the potential for undergraduate students to publish and present their science and benefit faculty supporters and their institutions. CUREs have revolutionized laboratory learning in the life sciences. In this article, we offer a review of current literature on the benefits and limitations of CUREs.