Cox Laboratory of Integrative Evolutionary Biology
  • Home
  • Research
  • Publications
  • People
  • News
  • The Itinerant Naturalist

Everyone is someone’s first choice

12/24/2025

0 Comments

 
Part of being a scientist is applying for things- grants, fellowships, jobs, and others. And of course, much of the time you are rejected after applying. However, sometimes you do get a grant, or a job, and at least part of the time, you might know that you were not the first choice. So what does it mean if you are a second choice, and what should you do about it, if anything?
            I have personal experience with being the second choice. I happen to know that I was the second choice for the postdoc position that I eventually got. I was also the second choice for my current position. How I know does not particularly matter, but there is often evidence of being the second choice in the timing of an offer. In both of my cases of being a second choice, I was informed by my prospective employers that I was the second choice, so I could not salve my ego with the balm of ambiguity.
            What does it mean that you are the second choice? I think the only thing it means is that the prospective advisor, or search committee, or department, decided to offer the position to someone else first. You won’t ever really know why this happens, but having seen this from the other side, it is usually contingent and has nothing to do with candidate quality. The other candidate might just fit the job ad or position a little better, even if the department (or postdoc advisor) really liked you. You might actually be the first choice, but the department choice was vetoed by the chair or dean. Even if you were not the first choice of the department or dean, you were some of the faculty’s first choice, guaranteed. And even if it is just one person making a decision (like a potential postdoc advisor), they are making their first and second choices with imperfect information. Speaking again from the other side of the decision-making, I have often reflected on how a department’s second choice turned out to be perfect for what we needed, and probably worked out better than our first choice.
            So what should you do about it if you find out you are the second choice? I think the only thing you need to do is not give that fact any weight at all. You were someone’s favorite (at least if a department or committee is making the decision), and nobody remembers who is first or second after a few months anyhow. My postdoc advisor ended up being a friend and long-time collaborator, despite being his second choice. I have loved my time at FIU, made friends with good colleagues, and earned tenure at FIU despite being second choice. It would be a real tragedy if something ultimately trivial like being a second choice poisoned what was otherwise a good opportunity. 
0 Comments

The dangers of abstraction in biology

12/7/2025

0 Comments

 
​I worry about abstraction in biology. When I refer to abstraction, I am generally referring to anytime we somehow transform, or abstract data in some fashion so that we are interpreting a transformed version of the data, and not the original data. What might be an example of this? I always think of molecular phylogenetics. The actual data used in molecular phylogenetics are individual sequences of DNA. There is then a layer of abstraction in aligning those DNA sequences to infer homology, then yet another layer of abstraction when those alignments are fed into an algorithm to infer a phylogeny.
            Of course, abstraction is inevitable. In the example of molecular phylogenetics, abstraction has occurred before we actually get to the DNA sequences. If we imagine that those sequences are generated by Sanger sequencing, then what is actually read by a sequencer is length of a sequence and reflectance of a labelled nucleotide in a capillary, which is then abstracted by a program into a linear DNA sequence. But I would argue that in this case, we can assume a nearly one to one correspondence between the actual DNA sequence and our abstracted linear sequence in a text file. I think where we need to be concerned is when we have reasons to think that the relationship between the actual data and the abstracted data is diverging from that one to one relationship.
            So why do we need to be concerned about abstraction? I think because it can generate problems that are non-identifiable. Using the same example of molecular phylogenetics, the step of alignment and assuming homology might not be appropriate because of pseudogenes or errors in alignment (particularly for very large datasets). There are many issues that can occur with the next step of reconstructing phylogenies, either problems like long-branch attraction that occur due to data problems, or because the method of reconstruction is inappropriate or incorrectly implemented. Of course, the phylogeny is rarely the last step of the process, as the phylogeny can then be used to map the evolution of traits, or trace the biogeography of a group, or to understand historical demography. For example, if we actually want to know how many times a trait has evolved convergently, we then need to use hierarchically abstracted data to make the actual biological inference that we are actually interested in. If our abstraction has created misleading patterns in the data at any stage, this could lead to making inaccurate inferences.
            I have been using the example of molecular phylogenetics and phylogenetic comparative biology, but that is only because these are fields where I have a lot of practical experience with data and methods. I can come up with similar issues with abstractions with species distribution modelling, visual models, and biophysical modelling, and of course there are many others.
            What should we do about abstraction? Well, I don’t think the solution is to avoid all abstraction altogether. I think that as scientists, we are already pretty comfortable with uncertainty, and in historical fields like phylogenetics and phylogenetic comparative biology, making inferences based upon heavily abstracted data is unavoidable. I do think that one thing that we can and should do is to both acknowledge the uncertainty that results from abstraction, and resist the urge to write papers more forcefully than is merited by our data and methods. I know that in order to get higher impact papers, making a forceful case for a single narrative is often the best bet for acceptance and impact. But we should also be precise in the confidence of inferences. From a pragmatic perspective, if we are making abstractions (e.g., inferring species distributions or physiology based upon remote sensing data) that can be groundtruthed with actual data, we should do so, either in the same studies, or encourage studies that do so. Additionally, even for historical data that cannot be groundtruthed, we should try to conduct robust and severe tests of hypotheses (sensu Platt and Deborah Mayo) with different types of data and analyses (e.g., integrating fossil data into biogeographic studies based on molecular phylogenetics). I think that the best work already employs these practices, but there is great scope for wider adoption of these methods. 
0 Comments

    Author

    Christian L. Cox is faculty at Florida International University. 

    Archives

    December 2025
    November 2025
    October 2025
    September 2025

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed