09:06:40
Interrogating the migration of scientific ideas into legal frameworks—and what gets lost in translation.
Interrogating the migration of scientific ideas into legal frameworks—and what gets lost in translation.
Background
What happens when law must regulate entities it cannot directly perceive?
The genome. The embryo. The algorithm. These are not simply legal objects awaiting regulation, nor scientific objects awaiting discovery. They exist in a space that neither discipline, alone, has the tools to fully comprehend.
My work is theoretical. I bridge philosophy, epistemology, science, and law—not to make them speak to each other, but because these phenomena demand a wider frame. A legal question about embryo status is also a question about temporality, potentiality, and how we know what we claim to know. A regulatory boundary around genetic data is also a claim about where the self begins and ends. The disciplines cannot be separated because the objects themselves refuse separation.
This is what I explore here: the assumptions that travel between fields unnoticed, the metaphors that harden into categories, the moments where our inherited frameworks meet their limits—and what it might mean to think beyond them.
Today
Completing doctoral research in law, I examine how scientific categories migrate into legal frameworks and quietly reshape what law can see and regulate. Working across constitutional law, bioethics, and critical epistemology, I'm drawn to the unexamined assumptions that move between disciplines—the metaphors that become legal categories, the technologies that challenge existing frameworks. Here, I share that work: research, writing, and the questions I'm still sitting with. You might want to click on the green buttons to get information about the genome, which is the current invisible structure I analyse, from a legal vantage point. Thanks for passing by.
About
What happens when law must regulate entities it cannot directly perceive?
The genome. The embryo. The algorithm. These are not legal objects awaiting regulation, nor scientific objects awaiting discovery. They exist in a space neither discipline alone has the tools to comprehend.
My work is theoretical. It bridges philosophy, epistemology, science and law, not to make them speak to each other, but because these phenomena demand a wider frame. A legal question about embryo status is also a question about temporality, potentiality, and how we know what we claim to know. A regulatory boundary around genetic data is also a claim about where the self begins and ends. The disciplines cannot be separated because the objects themselves refuse separation.
This is what I explore here: the assumptions that travel between fields unnoticed, the metaphors that harden into binding terms, the moments where inherited frameworks meet their limits, and what it might mean to think beyond them.
Today
I defended my doctorate in law at the University of Helsinki in May 2026, and passed with distinction. The thesis follows the human genome out of the laboratory and into treaties, statutes and judgments, asking what survives the passage, what is quietly occluded, and what normative work borrowed terms perform once courts begin reasoning with them.
What I want to build from here is larger. A theory of biojurisprudence: a way of thinking about law that begins with living matter rather than arriving after it, and that can hold its own against the sciences it depends on.
Here I share that work as it goes, writing in progress, shorter pieces, and the questions I'm still sitting with.
Thanks for passing by.
About
What happens when law must regulate entities it cannot directly perceive?
The genome. The embryo. The algorithm. These are not legal objects awaiting regulation, nor scientific objects awaiting discovery. They exist in a space neither discipline alone has the tools to comprehend.
My work is theoretical. It bridges philosophy, epistemology, science and law, not to make them speak to each other, but because these phenomena demand a wider frame. A legal question about embryo status is also a question about temporality, potentiality, and how we know what we claim to know. A regulatory boundary around genetic data is also a claim about where the self begins and ends. The disciplines cannot be separated because the objects themselves refuse separation.
This is what I explore here: the assumptions that travel between fields unnoticed, the metaphors that harden into binding terms, the moments where inherited frameworks meet their limits, and what it might mean to think beyond them.
Today
I defended my doctorate in law at the University of Helsinki in May 2026, and passed with distinction. The thesis follows the human genome out of the laboratory and into treaties, statutes and judgments, asking what survives the passage, what is quietly occluded, and what normative work borrowed terms perform once courts begin reasoning with them.
What I want to build from here is larger. A theory of biojurisprudence: a way of thinking about law that begins with living matter rather than arriving after it, and that can hold its own against the sciences it depends on.
Here I share that work as it goes, writing in progress, shorter pieces, and the questions I'm still sitting with.
Thanks for passing by.