Read more: Evidation Study Shows Digital Intervention Increases Flu Vaccination Rates Among People with Diabetes

←Back to news

Let’s start with your name and what you do at Evidation, please.

Eric J. Daza. I’m a lead biostatistician on the data science team at Evidation.

Where’s home? Where’d you grow up?

I was born and raised in Metro Manila, Philippines. My family and I moved to Southern California when I was almost nine, and I grew up mostly in Metro LA—specifically, Long Beach and Cerritos. As a grown-up, I’ve also happily called upstate New York, central North Carolina, and especially the SF Bay Area home.

How’d you end up at Evidation?

I originally learned about Evidation around 2017. As a postdoc in health behavior change, I’d been building statistical study design and analysis methods for self-tracked data. In 2018, Evidation hired me for 2 months as a statistics consultant. I was delighted, but bummed there wasn’t an opening for a more permanent position. Two years later, I was over the moon to join Evidation full-time as a Lead Biostatistician focused on digital health outcomes.

Do you have any fun (ok, weird) hobbies?

Can’t say I have many hobbies these days—except for blogging and occasionally working on digital health side projects. Once upon a time, I was, variously, a musician (piano and electric bass, some voice), rock climber, and amateur but enthusiastic Kravist.

What’s been your best day (so far) at Evidation?

1 June 2020: The day I was hired full-time. No really—see my LinkedIn post! ( I’ve had better Evidays since then, but these were only made possible thanks to Day One.

Favorite film?

Bram Stoker’s Dracula

What’s your favorite thing to do to earn points on Achievement?

Self-track! 😊

If you could have one superpower, what would it be and why?

I would instantly, immediately replace the phrase “statistically significant” with alternatives like “statistically discernible, detectable, apparent, or evident”. Even the magical ability to just shorten it to “statistical”—never “significant”—would be amazing!

Why? Unfortunately, the phrase “statistically significant” has become a form of institutionalized intellectual dishonesty that encourages bad scientific behavior, very often unwittingly. Lead statisticians explicitly endorse dropping it entirely. (see

Doing this will begin to undo and reverse the epic global damage of the Replication Crisis. It’s a true superpower of statistical communication!

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?


Further reading