The Legal Ontology of Persons:

1. The Legal Ontology of Persons: • The Transbeman Example • David Koepsell • SUNY Buffalo/Yale University

2. 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

3. e.g: The Gene Ontology • Discerning the relationships among genomes and phenotypes is the project of the Gene Ontology. Molecular function Cellular component Biological process The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007

4. 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 Biological process The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007

5. 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 Biological process The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007

6. 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

7. 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. Completed Gene Ontology humans penguins fruit flies The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007

8. 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.” Completed Gene Ontology humans penguins fruit flies Persons The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007

9. Persons and Biology Person bearing rights owing duties intending Emergent properties of personhood are ontologically related but not dependent upon the GO organism molecule cellular component The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007

10. 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

11. Bridging the Gap sentience Personhood • 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 GO intentionality The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007

12. 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. legal/social ontologies GO/OBO The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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