search

obo-behavior / behavior-ontology

Neuro Behaviour Ontology: an ontology for human and animal behaviour processes and behaviour phenotypes
25 stars 15 forks source link

NTR: smokeless tobacco behavior #121

Closed laurenechan closed 1 year ago

laurenechan commented 1 year ago

Hello, ECTO is interested in a new term regarding the usage of smokeless tobacco products and would like to request the following term: Label: smokeless tobacco behavior Definition: A tobacco consumption behavior which involves usage of tobacco with no smoke/vapor inhalation or exhalation. Subclass of: tobacco consumption (NBO:0045000)

DitchingIt commented 1 year ago

@laurenechan Are there more products in mind than chewing tobacco (NBO:0045001) - I can only think of snuff? It might be better to suggest a small number of additional positively constructed classes (possibly only tobacco sniffing behavior) rather than one large negative class in which chewing would then have to be placed (as the only member?) I think a flatter, positive class structure is most useful in this situation.

DitchingIt commented 1 year ago

There's a bunch of other things to sort through under consumption behavior, not least:

matentzn commented 1 year ago

whether human social activities belong in NBO https://github.com/obo-behavior/behavior-ontology/issues/109

I think they shouldn't, but separating them will be hard (i.e. walking can be both a human social activity and a behaviour). Is there an issue just about figuring out a clear delineation between the two concepts?

whether 'consumption' in the case of addictive substances is really more of a sibling than a parent of 'feeding'

Consumption is a pretty bad word for an ontology, because it seems to describe a kind of general concept of environmental exposure. I would probably classify "consumption" more as an exposure then a behaviour (i.e. consuming Netflix series = being exposed to Netflix series via route Listening / Hearing; being exposed to drug consumption by route ingestion). So the behaviour is drinking. On the other hand (contradicting what I said earlier), consumption wants to be a grouping class that simply wants to avoid clarifying the behaviour process: consumption of alcohol could be through inhalation, drinking, eating, etc.. Maybe we need a ticket on that as well?

DitchingIt commented 1 year ago

Is there an issue just about figuring out a clear delineation between the two concepts?

COB has been exploring it. If no one else does, I'll definitely come back to it one day, but it would be great if COB had finalised their position because we might adopt it. Unless someone else restarts #109 I'm letting sleeping dogs lie for now.

DitchingIt commented 1 year ago

Maybe we need a ticket on that as well?

Doubtless, but it's another sleeping dog to me at the moment.

We can keep this ticket open as a reminder.

DitchingIt commented 1 year ago

consumption wants to be a grouping class

I liked the word you used in #89 : 'lifestyle' which I think could also be part of the answer to your question about how to segregate social activities from behaviors. I've worked a lot with alcohol and other drug users and lifestyle is really far more apt on the social side than 'consumption', with behaviors including injecting, smoking, drinking, etc. So 'substance user (lifestyle) behavior' may involve substances yet not addiction; dependance is often apparently to the lifestyle rather than any particular drug, which can sometimes just signal the lifestyle, etc, etc. Your idea of exposure above is good too, because in the lifestyle context, the exposure is almost incidental rather than key: like the choice of route a hiker takes is pretty much incidental to the lifestyle behavior: it's the subculture which is the focus (media, colleagues, rites of passage, risk exposure, clothing, equipment, contingency management, etc). Is there an ethnography ontology already out there? Fascinating... but I still don't have space on my plate.

echesler commented 1 year ago

I suggest caution using lifestyle and ‘substance user’ with respect to addictive behaviors, as this gets into stigmatized ‘choice’ vs. ‘disease’

From: Ditch Townsend @.> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 1:28 PM To: obo-behavior/behavior-ontology @.> Cc: Subscribed @.***> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [obo-behavior/behavior-ontology] NTR: smokeless tobacco behavior (Issue #121)

consumption wants to be a grouping class

I liked the word you used in #89https://github.com/obo-behavior/behavior-ontology/issues/89 : 'lifestyle' which I think could also be part of the answer to your question about how to segregate social activities from behaviors. I've worked a lot with alcohol and other drug users and lifestyle is really far more apt on the social side than 'consumption', with behaviors including injecting, smoking, drinking, etc. So 'substance user (lifestyle) behavior' may involve substances yet not addiction; dependance is often apparently to the lifestyle rather than any particular drug, which can sometimes just signal the lifestyle, etc, etc. Your idea of exposure above is good too, because in the lifestyle context, the exposure is almost incidental rather than key: like the choice of route a hiker takes is pretty much incidental to the lifestyle behavior: it's the subculture which is the focus (media, colleagues, rites of passage, risk exposure, clothing, equipment, contingency management, etc). Is there an ethnography ontology already out there? Fascinating... but I still don't have space on my plate.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/obo-behavior/behavior-ontology/issues/121#issuecomment-1428449788, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFRBV43FB47PRATGZQ2G6TWXJ4MPANCNFSM6AAAAAASQ7NJ6A. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

The information in this email, including attachments, may be confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you believe you received this email by mistake, please notify the sender by return email as soon as possible.

DitchingIt commented 1 year ago

@echesler It certainly can be a minefield whenever motives and morality are invoked. If it was only about disease, it would of course not be within NBOs remit. Where behaviour choices exist however, it's hard to draw a boundary. I agree with anyone who suggests that addiction should be handled by a disease-related ontology. Also with anyone who says that inhalation, drinking, or injection is an observable action and hence of interest to NBO. I think 'lifestyle' helped me to think of (sub)culture as a possible way to define the boundary and to explain why it ought not to be NBO's business. Of course I may be wrong.

Incidentally, it's interesting that my destigmatising foci were on avoiding moralising behaviour as 'abuse' (hence 'use'), labelling a 'person' as an 'addict', or ignoring societal hypocrisy around alcohol, whilst yours was on avoiding victim blaming. I am grateful for the reminder to me to always look that bit deeper.

echesler commented 1 year ago

Consumption is contrasted with “preference” in the alcohol and drug field. One measures intake, # of drinks, etc, vs preference which is consumption vs. an inert substance, e.g. alcohol vs. tap water or calorically equivalent control.

From: Nico Matentzoglu @.> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 4:04 AM To: obo-behavior/behavior-ontology @.> Cc: Subscribed @.***> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [obo-behavior/behavior-ontology] NTR: smokeless tobacco behavior (Issue #121)

whether human social activities belong in NBO #109https://github.com/obo-behavior/behavior-ontology/issues/109

I think they shouldn't, but separating them will be hard (i.e. walking can be both a human social activity and a behaviour). Is there an issue just about figuring out a clear delineation between the two concepts?

whether 'consumption' in the case of addictive substances is really more of a sibling than a parent of 'feeding'

Consumption is a pretty bad word for an ontology, because it seems to describe a kind of general concept of environmental exposure. I would probably classify "consumption" more as an exposure then a behaviour (i.e. consuming Netflix series = being exposed to Netflix series via route Listening / Hearing; being exposed to drug consumption by route ingestion). So the behaviour is drinking. On the other hand (contradicting what I said earlier), consumption wants to be a grouping class that simply wants to avoid clarifying the behaviour process: consumption of alcohol could be through inhalation, drinking, eating, etc.. Maybe we need a ticket on that as well?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/obo-behavior/behavior-ontology/issues/121#issuecomment-1427576981, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFRBVY7U22PERMWFHLDPE3WXH2JXANCNFSM6AAAAAASQ7NJ6A. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

The information in this email, including attachments, may be confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you believe you received this email by mistake, please notify the sender by return email as soon as possible.

echesler commented 1 year ago

There is a very active NIDA funded research endeavor on animal genetics in addiction research, and as a result there is much data generated using measurements and observations associated with these terms. For NBO to be of value to this research community, it would be essential to reflect behaviors associated with consumption, intake, etc, as they are measured in humans and other organisms in laboratory and naturalistic settings. There are indeed cultural and regional differences in the perception and value of choice/determinism in behavior for many stigmatized characteristics, and whether characterization as a ‘disease’ also means ‘immutable’ vs ‘choice’ which is often, in the US associated with morality and addressed with punishment, demonstrably associated with poorer outcomes in addiction. So…what to do. I suggest that the terms need to stay in NBO, and to follow the guidance of Volkow, Gordon and Koob (NIH institute directors; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-021-01069-4) regarding terminology.

From: Ditch Townsend @.> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 5:26 PM To: obo-behavior/behavior-ontology @.> Cc: Elissa Chesler @.>; Mention @.> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [obo-behavior/behavior-ontology] NTR: smokeless tobacco behavior (Issue #121)

@echeslerhttps://github.com/echesler It certainly can be a minefield whenever motives and morality are invoked. If it was only about disease, it would of course not be within NBOs remit. Where behaviour choices exist however, it's hard to draw a boundary. I agree with anyone who suggests that addiction should be handled by a disease-related ontology. Also with anyone who says that inhalation, drinking, or injection is an observable action and hence of interest to NBO. I think 'lifestyle' helped me to think of (sub)culture as a possible way to define the boundary and to explain why it ought not to be NBO's business. Of course I may be wrong.

Incidentally, it's interesting that my destigmatising foci were on avoiding moralising behaviour as 'abuse' (hence 'use'), labelling a 'person' as an 'addict', or ignoring societal hypocrisy around alcohol, whilst yours was on avoiding victim blaming. I am grateful for the reminder to me to always look that bit deeper.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/obo-behavior/behavior-ontology/issues/121#issuecomment-1430461702, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFRBV6ZLWDIFJEV5DUL4YTWXQA7JANCNFSM6AAAAAASQ7NJ6A. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

The information in this email, including attachments, may be confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you believe you received this email by mistake, please notify the sender by return email as soon as possible.

DitchingIt commented 1 year ago

This is a great reference regarding stigmatising language. So glad, on this score, to see NIDA has been renamed.

Anyway, are there better or more terms/definitions that you would like to see in an external ontology that was useful to your work? Do you already use what is in NBO to any extent?

echesler commented 1 year ago

We have made many term requests for MP and VT working with Sue Bello and Cynthia Smith. These are generally useful terms added to annotate measures that are actively being evaluated in addiction genetics studies.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 16, 2023, at 11:40 AM, Ditch Townsend @.***> wrote:



This is a great reference regarding stigmatising language. So glad, on this score, to see NIDA has been renamed.

Anyway, are there better or more terms/definitions that you would like to see in an external ontology that was useful to your work? Do you already use what is in NBO to any extent?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/obo-behavior/behavior-ontology/issues/121#issuecomment-1433379361, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFRBV2OPZZDAGBLQEESSNLWXZJ77ANCNFSM6AAAAAASQ7NJ6A. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

The information in this email, including attachments, may be confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you believe you received this email by mistake, please notify the sender by return email as soon as possible.

DitchingIt commented 1 year ago

BCIO is developing its consumption behaviour side and in due course this NTR would do better there. The wider issue of NBO coordination with BCIO is being handled in #157

Duplicate of #157