Transcript PowerPoint

The Legal
Ontology of
Persons:
The Transbeman Example
David Koepsell
SUNY Buffalo/Yale University
Introduction
Non-technical, but important high-level issue
that impacts numerous in-use ontologies.
Personhood is assumed in numerous
ontologies, both social and biomedical.
Needs clarity, in light of developments in GO,
OBO, and developments likely to occur in AI.
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
e.g: The Gene Ontology
Discerning the relationships among genomes
and phenotypes is the project of the Gene
Ontology.
Molecular
function
Cellular
component
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
Biological
process
e.g: The Gene Ontology
The gene ontology, when completed, should give us
an accurate picture of the organism’s phenotype from
its genotype
Molecular
function
Cellular
component
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
Biological
process
e.g: The Gene Ontology
But there is more to people than phenotypes.
The legally, socially, and culturally important
object “person” is that which carries rights, owes
duties, and is considered relevant in social
ontologies.
Persons
?
?
?
Molecular
function
Cellular
component
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
Biological
process
Overbroad and Insufficient
“Persons” are important in medical and social
ontologies in ways that other objects are not.
The Gene Ontology does not distinguish persons
from other creatures, nor should it necessarily.
Genes, for the most part, carry out similar or
identical functions across species, and the
purpose of the Gene Ontology is to describe
relations among genes, proteins, cellular
functions and biological processes in general.
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
Overbroad and Insufficient
Nonetheless, one could
superimpose the human
genome on the
completed gene ontology,
and have a full
understanding of humans
at the biomechanical
level, or any creature for
that matter.
humans
penguins
Completed Gene
Ontology
fruit flies
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
Overbroad and Insufficient
But the social object
“person” is not, and
perhaps cannot be,
contemplated by the
Gene Ontology. We
need a separate
ontology of “persons.”
humans
penguins
Completed Gene
Ontology
fruit flies
Persons
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
Persons and Biology
Person
bearing
rights
intending
owing
duties
Emergent properties of personhood are ontologically
related but not dependent upon the GO
molecule
cellular
component
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
organism
Bridging the Gap
Genomic data certainly encodes information about
individual humans, but the person is a complex
continuant, with certain properties which, although
dependent upon a particular organism’s genome, are
nonetheless not described solely by that genome, but
rather by something more... like the individual’s
history...
? life
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
Bridging the Gap
An ontology of
personhood would
include the human
portion of the gene
ontology, as well as
whatever other
necessary and sufficient
conditions of
personhood. It would also
account for non-biological
forms of persons
sentience
GO
Personhood
intention
ality
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
The Need for a Bridge
Persons are the legally, socially and culturally
relevant level of granularity in social ontologies
(such as legal ontologies). They bear rights, owe
duties, are the subjects and objects of laws. If
medical ontologies are to communicate with legal
ontologies, there should be a bridge.
GO/OB
O
legal/social
ontologies
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
Legal Objects and the GO
There are already some legally
and socially relevant categories
known to be encompassed by the
genome. Some genetic diseases
produce persistent and legally
relevant mental states... e.g aph-1b
and schizophrenia
Gene Summary (APH1B)
Gene Symbol PSFL
OMIM
607630
Accession #
NP_112591.1
ncbi.nlm.nih.govthis link leaves Biocompare
Alternate names
Anterior pharynx defective 1 homolog B
Aph-1b
Aph1 beta
Gamma secretase subunit APH1B
Presenilin stabilization factor like
PSFL
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
Legal Objects and the GO
Certain cognitive and mental states and
phenotypes, including genetic defects affecting rights
(e.g. genetic disabilities covered under the ADA),
and even ethnic and racial distinctions recognized by
by society, culture, and the law relate to the genome.
social and
legal
categories
gene
ontology
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
Biomedicine and Law
Biomedical and legal/social ontologies should
communicate. Certainly, medical classifications matter
in legal ontologies. For instance, criminal liability only
attaches to sane, competent adults. Where medical
criteria effect sanity and competence, these criteria
should be available for legal use. This is already done,
in a way, through use of expert testimony.... why not
also expert systems?
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
Biomedicine and Law
In fact, all social ontologies already assume the
existence of the “person” as distinct from the
organism. Ethical issues, such as abortion, stem
cell research, depend on distinctions between
humans and persons. Blastocysts, fetuses,
rights-bearing persons and a fresh human corpse
are all legally and socially distinct, even though
they may be biomechanically (at least at certain
phases) identical. (also, e.g., those in PVS,
though neurologically distinct from other
humans). The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
Ontology of Personhood
A complete ontology of the person will include
all relevant descriptions of any emergent features
of organisms, and account for the structure of
persons apart from biology.
What does this have to do with the GO or
OBO? The genes responsible for sentience,
intentionality, and higher-order functions of
human persons will be links, but personhood will
never properly be a part of the GO or OBO
(though “human” surely is).
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
Ontology of Personhood
Objections/problems
Isn’t this just science?
As with other needed domains or ontologies, yes.
Social/legal ontologies already assume and
comprise some understanding of a person, but a
comprehensive and sound ontology of personhood
is necessary as a bridge to other scientific
ontologies. Consider its use in insurance, criminal
law, medicine, in helping to identify rights and
duties associated with persons.
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
Ontology of Personhood
Objections/problems
Isn’t this terribly complicated?
Yes. No one said it would be easy. But
current social ontologies all hinge on some
recognition of the entity “person.” We should
define those features necessary and sufficient
for personhood and provide linkage to
biomedical ontologies which often also
assume this entity.
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007
Transbemanism
Social and biological ontologies are developing
considering necessary conditions for personhood. What
must yet be done is to define the sufficient conditions,
separate and apart from existing ontologies.
existing legal ontologies provide a point of departure
as we have seen, biology alone is overbroad and
insufficient in defining legally and socially relevant
category “person”
New forms of persons will emerge, challenging
existing biomedical ontologies.
The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007