Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Atrazine

2015-04-01T17:56:09Z

Genomizer: /* Atrazine */

{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Chemicals|class=Start|importance=Mid}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Atrazine/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |units=days}}

== Atrazine in Europe ==

I am puzzled by the statements on the situation in Europe because they seem to contradict the information present in [[de:Atrazin|the German Wikipedia article on atrazine]] (I provide both the German text and the translation in case someone wants to doule-check the translation).

'''Original text:''' Da Atrazin und dessen Hauptabbauprodukt Desethylatrazin auch ins Grundwasser gelangen und damit dann auch im Trinkwasser nachgewiesen werden kann, ist die Anwendung von Atrazin seit 1. März 1991 in Deutschland und seit 1995 in Österreich verboten.

'''Translation:''' Because athrazine and his main degradation product desethylatrazine may also reach the groundwater and therefore can be detected in the drinking water, the application of athrazine is prohibited in Germany since the first of march 1991 in Germany and in Austria since 1995.

One of the reasons for this prohibition was an incident of october/november 1986 that I can vividly recall because it so to say passed by my home. I live in Bonn (at that time capital of West Germany) located about 20 kilometers from Cologne on the river Rhine. This is what happened:

'''Original text:''' Am 31. Oktober 1986 gelangten etwa 400 Liter Atrazin über die Abwässer der Firma Ciba-Geigy in den Rhein, was zusammen mit einem weiteren Chemieunfall der Firma Sandoz bei Basel einen Tag später ein Fischsterben im Rhein auslöste.

'''Translation:''' On the thirty-first of october 1986 about 400 liters of atrazine reached the river Rhine in the wastwater of the Ciba-Geigy company. Together with another chemical accident at the Sandoz company in Basel it caused a fish kills in the Rhine.

The incident also influcenced the drinking water supply along the Rhine because much of the drinking water in this region is bank filtrate.

One additional remark: If the description turns out to be correct something else needs to be corrected: ''No country has ever discontinued atrazine use for health or environmental safety reasons, including the European Union, and is used in more than 80 countries worldwide.''

This is not correct because the [[European Union]] is not a country but ''a supranational and intergovernmental union of twenty-seven states.''

If the statements in the German WP are in one way or another incorrect please provide sources. I'll then edit that article. -- [[User:Jsde|Jsde] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jsde|Jsde]] ([[User talk:Jsde|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jsde|contribs]]) 21:25, 5 May 2007‎ (UTC)

== Needs a description of who Hayes is and relevance to section ==

The name Hayes pops up in the controvery section without a description of who he is and how his work is relevant. I am sure he is important in the section, but the section doesn't say how. Someone who knows should fix this so that it scans properly.— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Primacag|Primacag]] ([[User talk:Primacag|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Primacag|contribs]]) 12:33, 24 August 2008‎ (UTC)

== New Section on Recently Released Data ==

The data just released http://www.socrata.com/government/2008-Results-Atrazine-Monitoring-Program-for-Commu/5mw6-aae5 from the Huffington post could justify a new section. It shows the levels of Atrazine in drinking water in over 100 watersheds in the US. Some of the levels are quite high. Links could be added for the geocoded data from GeoCommons - Data: http://finder.geocommons.com/search?query=atrazine and maps http://maker.geocommons.com/maps/7808. Perhaps someone with better knowledge on the subject could create this section.— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Esciar|Esciar]] ([[User talk:Esciar|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Esciar|contribs]]) 11:30, 23 September 2009‎ (UTC)

== Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology: Herbicide atrazine spurs reproductive problems in many creatures ==

As reported by Phyorg.com. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-herbicide-atrazine-spurs-reproductive-problems.html .— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:71.129.234.195|71.129.234.195]] ([[User talk:71.129.234.195|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/71.129.234.195|contribs]]) 14:49, 28 November 2011‎ (UTC)

== Mealworm study ==

Just a heads up that I removed this source <ref>{{cite journal|last=McCallum|first=Malcolm L.|author2=Matlock, Makensey|author3= Treas, Justin|author4= Safi, Barroq|author5= Sanson, Wendy|author6= McCallum, Jamie L.|title=Endocrine disruption of sexual selection by an estrogenic herbicide in the mealworm beetle (''Tenebrio molitor'')|journal=Ecotoxicology|year=2013|volume=22|issue=10|pages=1461–1466|doi=10.1007/s10646-013-1132-3|pmid=24085605}}</ref> and its content from the fish and insects section [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atrazine&diff=645555801&oldid=645554133].
{{reflist}}
Normally I'm very borderline tending towards not using primary sources in these topics, but this one has some very odd findings that really need interpretation from other expert sources. The previous version showed that females selected beetles with intermediate exposure of atrazine and that this was a reduction in fitness. The opposite could be said too though as females could be choosing the intermediate males for increased fitness (i.e., most likely to have some resistance trait at that exposure level). Definitely an interesting study, so I'm sure folks will be commenting on it in review type articles soon, so I'm just listing the source here as a a reminder to check on it and see what's been citing in awhile down the road. Otherwise, it's a little early to try to assess any weight for this study for it's various claims, especially on the American Burying Beetle ideas. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 04:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

== Reviews for effects on fish and amphibians ==

I'm out for the night, but I just came across three different reviews on the topic. They should be good for replacing the primary sources currently used in relevant sections of the article. I'll see about reading over them and incorporating them, but that may not be until the weekend. Here they are for anyone interested:

#A Qualitative Meta-Analysis Reveals Consistent Effects of Atrazine on Freshwater Fish and Amphibians [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.356.6405&rep=rep1&type=pdf]
#Effects of Atrazine in Fish, Amphibians, and Reptiles: An Analysis Based on Quantitative Weight of Evidence: [http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Glen_Kraak/publication/267872014_Effects_of_Atrazine_in_Fish_Amphibians_and_Reptiles_An_Analysis_Based_on_Quantitative_Weight_of_Evidence/links/546cef0d0cf2193b94c57af1.pdf]
#Effects of Atrazine on Fish, Amphibians, and Aquatic Reptiles: A Critical Review [http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408440802116496]

The last one appears to be behind a paywall, so I'll summarize that one first so that's done. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 04:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

::Cool! Thanks! [[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] ([[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]) 04:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::Those reviews look good. [[User:MLPainless|MLPainless]] ([[User talk:MLPainless|talk]]) 09:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

:Just finished reviewing and it looks like we have a treasure trove for content here. Just posting some general findings for each study for summary:

:1. '''Main finding:'''"As in past reviews, we found little evidence that atrazine consistently causes direct mortality of freshwater vertebrates at ecologically relevant concentrations, but there is evidence that atrazine might have adverse indirect ecological effects."
:*"Here we reveal that, for freshwater vertebrates, atrazine consistently reduced growth rates, had variable effects on timing of metamorphosis that were often nonmonotonic,elevated locomotor activity, and reduced antipredator behaviors. Amphibian and fish immunity was reliably reduced by ecologically relevant concentrations of atrazine,and this was regularly accompanied by elevated infections. Atrazine exposure induced diverse morphologic gonadal abnormalities in fish and amphibians and was associated with altered gonadal function, such as modified sex hormone production. This suggests that atrazine should be considered an endocrine disrupting chemical."
:2. '''Main finding:'''"Atrazine might affect biomarker-type responses, such as expression of genes and/ or associated proteins, concentrations of hormones, and biochemical processes (e.g. induction of detoxification responses), at concentrations sometimes found in the environment. However, these effects were not translated to adverse outcomes in terms of apical endpoints." (i.e., effects in lab with molecular/biochemistry assays, but not at organism level). See Fig. 36 & 37 on pp. 55-56 for really interesting summary graphs.
:*Simplified quote in summary: "Atrazine does not adversely affect fish, amphibians, and reptiles at concentrations that are present in surface waters."

:3. '''Main finding:''' "Based on a weight of evidence analysis of all of the data, the central theory that environmentally relevant concentrations of atrazine affect reproduction and/or reproductive development in fish, amphibians, and reptiles is not supported by the vast majority of observations." We conclude that environmentally relevant concentrations of atrazine do not affect amphibian growth, sexual development, reproduction, and survival. Although fewer data are available, the same conclusions apply to fish and reptiles."
:*Background:Estradiol can cause sex reversal in genetic males, with males developing ovaries instead of testes. In some cases, estradiol-exposed animals can exhibit gonads that are intermediate in appearance between testes and ovaries (testicular ovarian follicles). Finding: There is no temporal evidence of any association between atrazine and reproductive effects as indicated by the presence of testicular ovarian follicles in frogs. (i.e., TOFs occurred in similar levels before atrazine was on the market).
:*No evidence of atrazine concentration effect on a number of reproductive and developmental endpoints.
:*On the Hayes controversy: "With rare exceptions, the only studies that report adverse effects on amphibian development and reproduction are those from the Hayes laboratory." Only effects found were at concentrations not found in the environment.
:*"There is no evidence that atrazine itself (or its metabolites) act directly at hormone receptors."

:Looking over the three, they all all review pretty much the same studies. It appears the first one reached different conclusions because it included studies the other two excluded because the excluded studies had poor study design, low sample size, etc. They comment on their selection criteria a bit too, so I'm going to reread that and see if there's more to pull from there. I'll look into putting together some content based on these reviews in a bit. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 02:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

== Study funding ==

Just wanted to give a heads up on this recent revert of mine. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atrazine&curid=1762549&diff=646134738&oldid=646134121] In the whole [[Tyrone Hayes]] controversy, study funding has been brought up sometimes. While most folks familiar with science may know that being funded by a company does not mean they had a say in study design, writing the paper, etc., not all readers are going to know that. It's a common trope where people dismiss an independent study funded by a company because they aren't aware of the detail I re-added in my edit. Now that's just me talking as a scientist, but taking that hat off any putting my Wikipedia hat on, we do have that COI claim come up in Tyrone Hayes/atrazine related sources. In this single case, the source specifically stating the company's involvement or lack of it is actually pretty important. In most other articles though we'd consider declaration/lack of COI statements standard and unneeded. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 03:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:It's ''very'' unusual to insert that sort of disclaimer into wikipedia. I'm pretty confident it's a poor edit and will not survive.[[User:MLPainless|MLPainless]] ([[User talk:MLPainless|talk]]) 21:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

:::I dunno, maybe it should be more common. I see again and again these phrases "funded by the manufacturer" thrown out to undercut the credibility of industry funded studies. On first pass, I understand that. But I think it is really a little more complicated that that.
:::*It neglects the fact that COI is everywhere, and is not always financial in nature. What academic gets tenure, notoriety, invitations to appear on NPR television specials, or awards by investigating the effect of a pesticide on amphibian development and writing a paper that says "Didn't find a problem. Its pretty much exactly as the EPA and the manufacturer described it."? If Hayes didn't report shocking and unexpected results on amphibians, would anyone know his name today? I suspect not. Scientists, like journalists, intrinsically have a career and financial interest in reporting interesting, even sensational, results. And of course his emails to company scientists at this point clearly indicate that the conflict has become a personal issue.
:::*It ignores the fact that "industry funded" usually means the work was done by a third party who has no direct financial interest in the sales of the product. Industry funding may get you a little spin, but its hardly likely to buy you the 1000x difference in No Observed Adverse Effect Levels seen between Haye's results and nearly everyone else's. Those are testable facts, and falsifying research results performed for regulatory purposes on a pesticide product will buy you jail time.
[[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] ([[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]) 22:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with KingofAces that there is no need to call out non-involvement of Syngenta in the article preparation as a "disclaimer" in the article. The fact that Syngenta paid for the study and that they were not involved in the research or writing the paper both spring from the same source, which is the paper itself. If it is reliable for one statement, it is reliable for both. [[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] ([[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]) 04:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

:We (and WP) are not the arbiters of the extent the company was involved in the study. The statement that they had nothing to do with the study, when you consider that this is one of their most profitable products, is essentially a claim, not a verifiable, testable fact, and needs to be couched in some way that shows the wording comes from the source, virtually verbatim. [[User:MLPainless|MLPainless]] ([[User talk:MLPainless|talk]]) 06:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:And can you point to ''any'' other article on wikipedia that carries this sort of disclaimer statement? I know of numerous places where the funding sources of studies are stated, but I have never seen this disclaimer inserted to (apparently) add credibility to the findings of the study, just in case readers suspect that the funding source colored the outcomes. Anyone? Why would you want to do this? [[User:MLPainless|MLPainless]] ([[User talk:MLPainless|talk]]) 06:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::looking at the history article, the disclaimer about the effect of the funding was a direct response to your adding content about the source of the funding, MLPainless. It was a very predictable response to that. That content is directly sourced from the article and is peripheral to its content, just as the content you added was. It is rare in WP to describe the funding of a study as well. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 09:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Firstly, there is another instance in the article mentioning Syngenta's funding of another atrazine-exculpatory study (''not'' added by me), if you'd bothered to look before making your comment. It is, in fact, ''not'' rare to mention funding sources for studies, especially when the study in question describes a swathe of independent research as being of "poor quality" (this looks like a clear case of [[funding bias]] to me, but I cannot be sure). [https://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en-AU&as_q=study+funded+site%3Awikipedia.org This google search] will reveal hundreds of instances of research funding mentions in wikipedia. [[User:MLPainless|MLPainless]] ([[User talk:MLPainless|talk]]) 09:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

:::Hi Painless,
:::I realize this is a contentious issue but let's try to be mutually respectful and leave out the language about "bothering to look before commenting".
:::To address your point:
:::I do not often see any of the following in articles here
:::* Repeating the statement of the author of a company-funded study that the company was not involved in preparing the manuscript
:::* Assertions by one of the parties in the conflict that "all of the studies supporting the comapany's position involve flawed controls and COI".
:::* Descriptions of experimental results (as opposed to reviews and more opinion-related articles) as "industry funded", which in this case comes across as a thinly veiled and unsubstantiated suggestion of data fraud.
:::I think given the inclusion of the latter two points, the inclusion of the first makes for a more balanced story. Lastly I'd say that your addition of scare quotes around the "disclaimer" is [[WP:OR]]. The statement comes from a [[WP:RS]] and you can't just suggest fraud as a way of discrediting any reliable source that you disagree with. If you have a reliable, third party source that has credibly questioned the truthfulness of the author's statement on this specific paper, that might be different. [[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] ([[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]) 10:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::F98, I've read your comment twice and still do not understand it. Can you be clearer please? [[User:MLPainless|MLPainless]] ([[User talk:MLPainless|talk]]) 12:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::What I'm saying is that we want to describe this controversy and not take sides in it. The quote from Hayes calling every study that disagrees with his conclusions COI-driven, combined with systematically calling out each Syngenta-funded study as such, is over the top from my POV. [[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] ([[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]) 13:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Also looking at the reviews I mentioned above, Hayes' work ''may'' even be on the [[WP:FRINGE]] spectrum. I say may because it looks like a potential, but I'd want to do some digging into other sources before really assessing whether that's the case or not. If it is though, comments like work being covered up by big companies, etc. are very common responses of fringe proponents in science, so that's why my red flag is up when thinking about fringe ideas. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 17:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}I'm not discussing the Hayes section at the moment. I'm discussing the Syngenta review that found many independent studies to be "poor quality". We seem to be talking at cross purposes. [[User:MLPainless|MLPainless]] ([[User talk:MLPainless|talk]]) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:The point was that the calls about funding source appear like they could be coming from a fringe viewpoint. What I was discussing and the discussion of the review you're mentioning are very related. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 04:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
::I was not thinking of Prof. Hayes when I started discussing the wording around the Syngenta review. Let's not conflate the issues. [[User:MLPainless|MLPainless]] ([[User talk:MLPainless|talk]]) 04:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I'd reread Formerly's last few posts if you're somehow seeing conflation here. I'm not seeing how you're saying what we were discussing above isn't related. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 05:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::Well, Painless, I feel that this is turning into a tempest in a teapot, as the meta analysis is not the only source to reach this conclusion. If you are that unhappy with the current text, and if other editors agree, I could accept the following replacement.

::::::"Available epidemiological studies of atrazine exposure in pregnancy have important shortcomings that limit their utility for drawing conclusions regarding effects in people. A 2015 systematic review of pregnancy epidemiology studies, funded by atrazine manufacturer Syngenta, concluded that the quality of most studies was poor, that no single category of negative pregnancy outcome was found consistently across studies, and that conclusions regarding a positive link between atrazine exposure and adverse pregnancy outcomes were not warranted. <strike>Syngenta was not involved in the design, collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data and did not participation in the preparation of the manuscript.</strike> The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry] (ATSDR) reached [http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts153.pdf similar conclusions], noting that available studies are confounded by exposure to other chemicals. [http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/studies/atrazfinaldoc.pdf A review by the Minnesota Department of Health] stated that currently avaialable studies are insufficient to establish causal relationships between atrazine exposure and pregnancy adverse outcomes due to methodological limitations including poor exposure assessment, the use of aggregate rather than individual measures of exposure, small sample size, limited statistical power for certain outcomes, and inability to control for confounding factors."

::::::However, this strikes me as very long-winded at it takes us to the same place as the original language.

:::::[[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] ([[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]) 09:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

::::::Well, looking at one of the new sources you're suggesting (the ATSDR source), it's pretty good. It states that '''"Atrazine may affect pregnant women by causing their babies to grow more slowly than normal. Birth defects and liver, kidney, and heart damage has been seen in animals exposed to high levels of atrazine"''' and '''"Liver, kidney, and heart damage has been observed in animals exposed to atrazine; we do not know if this would also occur in humans. Atrazine has also been shown to cause changes in blood hormone levels in animals that affected ovulation and the ability to reproduce. These effects are not expected to occur in humans because of specific biological differences between humans and these types of animals"'''. I'd like to see some of that in the article, actually. It also states:

::::::<div style="background-color:none;margin-right:8em;margin-left:0em;border-left:solid 10px #ccc;padding:1.5em;padding-left:1em;text-align:justify">However, the women in these studies were also exposed to other chemicals that may have caused or contributed to these effects. In pregnant animals, exposure to atrazine causes a decrease in fetal growth and birth defects. Exposure to high levels of atrazine during pregnancy caused reduced survival of fetuses. It is unclear whether or at what level of exposure this might occur in humans. </div>

:::::: ...which is much more direct and sensible than the strenuous efforts the current wp article ''seems'' to be making to give the herbicide a clean bill of health in regard to pregnant women. Using some of this language would improve the article immeasurably. So yes, I would support the use of some of these quotes in the section on mammals. The quotes cut through some of the obfuscation that characterizes the current text in the wp page. [[User:MLPainless|MLPainless]] ([[User talk:MLPainless|talk]]) 01:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::::I don't think anyone is making "strenuous efforts to give the herbicide a clean bill of health in regard to pregnant women" at all. I think we're all trying just as hard as you are to make this article present a balanced view of the controversy. We just have different opinions on what represents a reliable source. You are worried about a grant funding a meta analysis; I wonder about the objectivity of a scientist who sends emails to company employees referring to his erection and ejaculate and starts a website called "atrazinelovers.com". Both concerns likely have some merit.
:::::::I have no objection to expanding the discussion of effects seen in animals a bit, but believe that such reports are meaningless unless the doses at which the effects were observed are included. Unless you are aware of other reliable secondary sources, there seems to be a reasonable consensus that the epidemiological data suggests important areas for further investigation, but is inconclusive due to the issues I described above.
:::::::Overall, I think we all need to remember that
:::::::* Wikipedia describes controversies and does not take sides in them, and
:::::::* Appropriate weighting is determined by the prevalence of different viewpoints among reliable sources
::::::::Given the existence of significant controversy, giving this product "a clean bill of health" or giving the impression that there is consensus that current exposures are harmful would both be NPOV and a disservice to our readers. We need to communiciate the ambiguity.
::::::::Please take a look at the FIFRA scientific advisory committee meeting minutes that I linked to in the section below. There are some items there that align with your POV that I think could/should be added, and I'm surprised you do not seem to have looked at that document yet.
::::::: [[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] ([[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]) 02:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}FIFRA minutes ... it's an EPA memorandum. Is that even a RS?
* I am not here to impart a POV aspect to the article. I just think inserting sentences like "Syngenta was not involved in the design, collection ..." is a completely unnecessary counterweight to the noting that the company funded the review.
* I'm not sure what the atrazinelovers.com and erection references are all about, and I don't want to know. [[User:MLPainless|MLPainless]] ([[User talk:MLPainless|talk]]) 04:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

::Yes, the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Board would be [[WP:RS]], as it is a secondary source and its presence is Congressionally mandated to provide independent input to EPA decisions.
::My point with respect to the other two items you mentioned is that it doesn't make sense to single out a study funded by but not conducted by Syngenta for scrutiny with respect to its accuracy and objectivity. We extensively quote a scientist in this article who sent the emails I described. We can call out the fact that Syngenta funded that meta analysis, but the flip side of that is call out the other articles as "performed by a scientist with a readily apparent personal feud with Syngenta". I really think its best if we don't do either. [[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] ([[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]) 06:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:::By saying "Syngenta funded" we are not "singling out" a study for "scrutiny with respect to its accuracy and objectivity". We are simply making readers aware of the funding, which is quite proper and common in wikipedia. And likewise, if this scientist (Hayes) has personal financial gain at stake, then yes, we need to highlight his involvement with the various studies he produced. Does he? [[User:MLPainless|MLPainless]] ([[User talk:MLPainless|talk]]) 08:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::::On the first point, I still disagree. Since our positions are not converging, would it make sense to try to agree on language for an RFC? ON the second point, I found a good review from the EPA that declares "a pox on both your houses" and added it to the article. Thanks [[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] ([[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]) 14:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::I'm not sure if we need an RfC yet, but I do agree that we shouldn't be singling out studies like that. There isn't a reason for describing funding source here (or in most cases really) as funding source isn't particularly relevant to the findings of studies, so that becomes undue weight to focus on it here. It's pretty common for university researchers to get funding from a company to ''independently'' evaluate a product and if the company wasn't a little sloppy on their own in-house assessments, the researcher will come back with a publication saying the product just doesn't work, has non-target effects, etc. Focusing on funding source makes it seem important when it's really not. It's only where there is a true conflict of interest that such details become important (such as being involved in study design), but that's the journal's job to assess that, not ours. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 16:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

::::::I think the current version of [[WP:RS]] allows for pointing out funding sources, particularly when they are from industry. I don't really agree with that, but there it is. The review I just added to the article points out from a regulator's POV where a lot of the non-financial COIs arise, and that article to my mind speaks to why we should not have such a laser like focus on anything that even vaguely looks like it could be interpreted as a financial COI. Its like obsessing about being run over by a red car. You're equally likely to be run over by one that is white, black, or blue. [[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] ([[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]) 17:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::My sentiments exactly. I was going to describe funding source as a red herring (decided just to keep my post short earlier) because it distracts from where you can find actual problems in publishing. In terms of actual edits for this article, it doesn't seem like there's consensus to include the funding source language. Is there anything that would change that at this point, or would it be better to move on to other topics? [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 17:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC):

My feeling is that the attacks on credibility, claims of harrassment, and other attempts by each side to demonize the other are best ommitted from articles. However, there are many editors who don't agree with my opinion, especially when o m e of the parties to the dispute is a large corporation. I then find myself in the awkward position of adding negative material to create balance as it is easier to defend than removing the negative material already present.
My preference is to remove all material questioning the reliability of peer reviewed research except to note the existence of conflicting findings, and to remove all other material about harassment and obscene email. But I doubt we can get consensus for that, so my second choice is to leave it as it is, with balanced shitting on both sides. [[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] ([[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]) 18:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

* '''"There isn't a reason for describing funding source here"''' (Kingofaces43). I have to disagree strongly with this. Just let's look at an allied field, medicine.

: In ''Scientific American'' there's an article called "Bad Medicine, Why Data from Drug Companies is hard to swallow". Some key points: (1) Companies (even the biggest ones) are massaging data to an unbelievable degree to get their drugs approved. This includes excluding data and misrepresenting data. (2) Companies pay the FDA $500,000 for each drug approved. The FDA is therefore approving more and more (useless and sometimes harmful) drugs, even when the studies supporting the drugs are clearly flawed and massaged.

: Furthermore, nearly half of all medical school faculty members who serve on boards designed to protect patients enrolled in clinical studies also serve as paid consultants to drug companies and other sectors of the biomedical industry. [http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2003/08000/Financial_Conflict_of_Interest_Policies_in.2.aspx]

:And again: "Studies funded by the private sector tend to produce outcomes that are much more aligned with the financial interests of those sectors than studies funded by the government, etc." (Prof. Sheldon Krimsky, Tufts University, author of the upcoming book: ''Science in the Private Interest'')

: I'd encourage editors to listen to this: [http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/otm/otm120712c.mp3 ''Big-Pharma Funding, Medical Journals, and Bias in Pharmaceutical Studies''] - "Surprise, surprise — studies where the investigators have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry are usually designed to provide confirmation of a predetermined result — that the drug is effective and side effects are minimal, even when one or both of those things is untrue."

: Therefore I don't think you can say that funding is not important, especially when it's been proved so clearly to be important in medicine generally. [[User:MLPainless|MLPainless]] ([[User talk:MLPainless|talk]]) 23:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

::::I am going to end this discussion because we don't agree and it is highly unlikely we are going to. But I'll leave you with a [http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001202 quote] from Guido Rasi, former head of the EMA:

:::::"We do not dispute that financial conflicts of interests (CoIs) may render analyses and conclusions “vulnerable to distortion” [1]. However, surrounding the ongoing debate over sponsor-independent analyses is an implicit assumption that “analysis by independent groups” is somehow free from CoIs. We beg to differ. Personal advancement in academia, confirmation of previously defended positions, or simply raising one's own visibility within the scientific community may be powerful motivators. In a publish-or-perish environment, would the finding of an important adverse or favorable drug effect at the p<0.05-level be more helpful to a researcher than not finding any new effects? Will society always be guaranteed that a finding that is reported as “confirmatory” was not the result of multiple exploratory re-runs of a dataset? We submit that analyses by sponsor-independent scientists are not generated in a CoI-free zone and, more often than not, ego trumps money."

:::: Having spent years in academia myself, this quote captures my observations very well. [[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] ([[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]) 02:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::I'll also chime in that if there is truly a COI of any sort, peer reviewers are supposed to be looking for that in a fashion. Anyone with the expertise can technically do that by going through the study's methodology, assumptions, etc. If there is something wrong with the study, it tends to be apparent in the methods and results whether it's financial COI, or most anything else. That's also why I consider funding source a huge red herring. However, we as editors are not considered experts to give that degree of reliable scrutiny, so we need secondary sources to say if the study had some weaknesses in its design. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 15:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

== EPA 2009 review ==

The EPA started a new review in 2009 for re-registration purposes. We quote the Agency n the article stating "the agency’s scientific bases for its regulation of atrazine are robust and ensure prevention of exposure levels that could lead to reproductive effects in humans"

This is taken from a longer paragraph here, where the Agency states "During the July 2011 FIFRA SAP meeting, the Panel commented that – while there are still areas of uncertainty – the agency’s scientific bases for its regulation of atrazine are robust and ensure prevention of exposure levels that could lead to reproductive effects in humans. Reproductive effects are the most sensitive effects observed in atrazine toxicity tests and, as such, our efforts to regulate the pesticide to protect against these effects through drinking water exposure will protect against all other effects that occur at higher levels."

While I do not regard myself as a conspiracy theorist or an Agency critic, I'm not clear that the Agency's description of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel's conclusions are strictly accurate. The meeting minutes, found [http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2011/july/072611minutes.pdf here] contain statements along the following lines:

Page 11: "Although there was a consensus among the Panel that it is highly unlikely that the dose of atrazine under discussion (100 mg/kg for 4 days) would have adverse
reproductive outcomes, itwas recognized that the outcome of repeated doses, e.g., a second dose occurring 10 days later, was unknown... There was considerable disquiet among the Panel members that despite solid evidence for the mode of action (MOA)for
atrazine to attenuate the LH surge, there was a complete lack of knowledge of the underlying neural or molecular mechanisms in the hypothalamus and an absence of direct coupling of LH surge attenuation to Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOP). There was a general consensus that more deta iled experimentation is required...."

Page 14: "the Panel took issue with the statement on page 71 of the EPA Issue Paper that states “the weight of the evidence supports that atrazine is not likely to be
carcinogenic in the human population." First of all, there is considerable uncertainty and gaps in the toxicological evidence concerning whether atrazine is a human carcinogen. Second, EPA has not done a comprehensive “weight of the evidence” assessment; instead, the toxicological evidence appears to be used to nullify any positive evidence from the epidemiologic studies. Third, the evidence across cancer sites is mixed, not uniform, with some cancer sites having no evidence for an association whereas other cancer sites having at least suggestive evidence for a causal association."

Page 15: "Many on the Panel believed that the epidemiology data failed to provide
compelling evidence that atrazine is not carcinogenic."

Page 16: "The Panel recommended adjusting the conclusion that atrazine is unlikely to be
carcinogenic to humans to “inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential.” This category is appropriate given that an association is unlikely with some cancers, but epidemiologic evidence suggests possible associations with ovarian and thyroid cancers."

Page 16: "The inconsistency of animal mechanistic and toxicological data with results from human epidemiologic data does not mean the risk associations identified in human studies do not reflect reality, even though animal experiments are not available or do not support the epidemiologic findings because animal models do not always apply to humans even when they are available. Notable epidemiologic findings (using the framework established in February 2010) should be given greater weight in risk assessments and should suggest avenues for future mechanistic and toxicological
investigations if these are lacking, as is often the case."

I'd appreciate it if some other folks could look at this and offer their opinions on whether I've correctly interpreted these two documents as contradicting each other.

Thanks [[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] ([[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]) 20:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

== Misattributed quote from Syngenta website ==

{{ping|Gandydancer}} good catch on the Syngenta quote. But in removing the quote, you also took all reference to a peer reviewed article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and a review by Australia's governmental agency regulating agricultural chemicals, which was not necessary for addressing the problem you identified. I restored these, replaced the faux quote with one from the actual source document, and reduced the breadth of the claim describing the quote. [[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] ([[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]) 13:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

== reference issue ==

Note to {{u|Gandydancer}} and {{u|Formerly 98}} - there was a reference issue in the article.
*One ref was called "APVMA" and went to http://www.apvma.gov.au/products/review/completed/atrazine.php (which the site redirects to http://apvma.gov.au/node/12371 - I have updated that)
* the other ref was called "apvma" and went to http://www.apvma.gov.au/news_media/chemicals/atrazine.php, a link that is now dead and ''also'' is redirected to http://apvma.gov.au/node/12371. I changed the name of this one to apvma2010 and provided the internet archive link to the page, archived at July 4, 2010 which is here https://web.archive.org/web/20100704154517/http://www.apvma.gov.au/news_media/chemicals/atrazine.php. You both will find that the article content sourced to that site is verified.
That was kind of subtle but all understandable and clear - there was no bad faith editing. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 13:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

== Atrazine ==
Hi hi,
You reverted my changes to the Atrazine page. I fixed that reference to the primary source, hopefully this appeases you. It seems you are a sort of watchdog for these big agri companies. For me I work in pediatric genetics. We see a lot of congenital defects that can't be explained by genetics, they are not inherited. In fact perhaps only 30% of the cases are genetic, others are likely to be environmental effects. We know so little about epigenetics, in the centuries to come more and more so, but studies like this should be encouraged. They are continuously squashed by these big agri companies, the very makers of the chemical, but these are the children of our species being affected. I am a novice here and willing to learn, let me know how I can strengthen that addition to the page, because I think that study should be included (and there are more coming showing the same about this herbicide!). — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Genomizer|Genomizer]] ([[User talk:Genomizer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Genomizer|contribs]]) 18:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC) 
:OK thanks so much for talking and for bringing this here. I take it you have some medical training, so that is helpful. The following may be a bit bizarre to you, so please bear with me. This is an encyclopedia (see [[WP:NOT]] (sorry for that, but there are tons of "policies and guidelines" that govern what we do here; they are documents the community has put together over the years, to govern itself. This is place is not a "wild west" at all) But yeah, we are an encylopedia, not a newspaper, not a science textbook. Our mission is to give reliable, neutral information to the public - to present the sum of human knowledge. Grand, i know. almost crazy. Where does that information come from? It cannot be [[WP:OR|original research]] - instead, it has to be something that readers and other editors can [[WP:VERIFY|verify]] from what we call "reliable sources". For health related content, "reliable sources" are defined in [[WP:MEDRS]] - please give that a read.
: But I will summarize it, and the reason why we have it.
: So.. everything in WP starts with sources. (so essential! garbage in, garbage out, right?) Every policy and guideline we have, urges editors to rely on ''secondary sources''. We are ''editors'' here, not authors. We don't write review articles here... instead we ''read'' review articles, and we summarize them here - that is what we do ''as editors''. Again, I am assuming you are familiar with the science and the literature.... and if so, you know that the primary literature - the research papers where people publish their experimental data and their conclusions - is littered with papers that are duds. Scientists working in a given field know their literature - they know what papers led nowhere, or were based on false assumptions, and were left behind, and which ones are the rich veins that lead to deeper understanding. And you know which ones everybody is wondering about. Wikipedia editors don't know that - and even if they do - they cannot make decisions about picking that primary source or this one, based on ''their own authority'' - that is original research here! So what we use, are secondary sources.
: per MEDRS, secondary sources are review articles from the literature, or statements by major medical or scientific bodies.
: So .. I reverted your content b/c the content is about health (as you said) but it is based on a primary source, not a secondary one.
: happy to discuss. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 19:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

::I think it most bizarre that you think this page is neutral. And I agree about single papers versus review articles, and the retraction rate is certainly high and seems to be increasing. I suppose I was under the assumption the reader would come to their own conclusions based on peer-reviewed published works, and not be forced to read another potentially biased individuals filtered set of 'secondary sources'. The worries come when the review articles are entirely funded by non-objective entities. That said the page stands out because it doesn't seem neutral, all the articles seem to be in the same vein: in support that this chemical is harmless. I just wondered why so much literature showing the dangers of Atrazine are absent. Why do you think that is? I know you often find yourself defending these corporations, and oddly enough, I rather agree that the GMOs you valiantly defend are harmless to humans when ingested, simply broken down to useful AAs. I think the obvious worry there is ecological, but I digress. I only request that you remain objective on this topic, I am not attacking your company, only want to make sure these papers on the dangers of Atrazine are not overlooked, or worse yet, purposefully removed. So I can happily find more sources, and hopefully they meet all the criteria you have linked here. [[User:Genomizer|Genomizer]] ([[User talk:Genomizer|talk]]) 20:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
::: What we do is look at the most recent reviews we can find, and craft content based on them. we do try to be neutral (and btw, please do read [[WP:NPOV]] - it does ''not'' mean "fair and balanced" - it means that we give the most weight (space and prominence) to what we find to be the mainstream views, less weight to 'significant minority opinions", and we basically keep FRINGE views out. We rely on high quality reviews to tell us that. So really - please look at the sourcing. If there are recent, high quality reviews that are not incorporated, or if you find that we cite the best and most recent reviews, but we skew them, please speak up about about the specific content and sourcing where you see that happening. Thanks! [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 20:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
::::People already believe this page to have been hijacked, and it certainly seems biased. I don't see this as an encyclopedia article, more akin to propaganda. But in all seriousness, these defects are life threatening. I truly do worry about the children affected. Can you help me show their side of the story? What if a single mother started filtering her water to remove this poison, what if a single child could be saved such a defect? I suppose I had a small glimmer of hope that the other side of the story could be told, and the evidence is mounting. This argument is more credible since the EPA has re-opened the review of the effects of this chemical on human health, especially highlighting birth defects. Development is so sensitive! — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Genomizer|Genomizer]] ([[User talk:Genomizer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Genomizer|contribs]]) 21:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC) 
:::::yes the ED controversy is intense and i absolutely understand the worried parent thing. for sure. at the same time, as the lead of [[WP:MEDRS]] says, what we don't want to do, is be on the front lines of ringing panic-inducing alarms. I really meant what I said above - really i did. if you are aware of recent reviews that we are not using that show that the risks ''are'' stronger than this article expresses them as being, or if the reviews that we are using state the risks more strongly than the current content does, please call those out. Specific things. Please. I mean that. We have been doing the best we can but we may have screwed up. We really do try to follow and be true to the most reliable, recent secondary sources. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

::::Please find a review that brings out your issues. Without that, it's tough to argue that the article is out of whack. When such reviews surfaced for glyphosate, their content went into the article. The discussion is intense, but it is not futile. [[User:Lfstevens|Lfstevens]] ([[User talk:Lfstevens|talk]]) 06:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

:::::The lead of the article does currently state that atrazine "was banned in the European Union in 2004 because of persistent groundwater contamination", that "studies suggest it is an endocrine disruptor, an agent that may alter the natural hormonal system in animals" and that "EPA's review was criticized, and atrazine's safety remains controversial". If readers wish to make up their own minds, those statements alone should provoke questions about the EPA's reassurances of safety. [[User:PaleCloudedWhite|PaleCloudedWhite]] ([[User talk:PaleCloudedWhite|talk]]) 07:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

::The page is riddled with primary sources and broken links. It is good that the statements PaleCloudedWhite points out are there, but I did notice the EUs decision was based on contamination AND the association with birth defects; the birth defect part purposefully removed or left out. As yet there are no good reviews, the most recent is in 2012 and entirely funded by the manufacturer, so of absolutely no value. I can only keep an eye on the literature, and keep wondering about these kids we see with choanal atresia and stenosis, living here in the heart of the Atrazine contamination. Time will eventually reveal the truth, I only wonder how our population will be affected. Maybe you are just following your rules, but by defending monsters you become monsters yourselves.[[User:Genomizer|Genomizer]] ([[User talk:Genomizer|talk]]) 17:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Genomizer: /* U.S. House of Representatives */

{{Infobox Congressman
| name = Brian Baird
| image name = Brian Baird.jpg
| birth_date = {{birth date and age|1956|03|07}}
| birth_place = [[Chama, New Mexico]]
| occupation= [[Psychologist]], [[College Professor]]
| residence= [[Edmonds, Washington]]
| alma_mater =[[University of Utah]], [[University of Wyoming]]
| state = [[Washington (U.S. state)|Washington]]
| district = {{ushr|Washington|3|3rd}}
| term_start= January 3, 1999
| term_end = January 3, 2011
| preceded = [[Linda Smith (American politician)|Linda Smith]]
| succeeded = [[Jaime Herrera Beutler]]
| party = [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrat]]
| spouse = Rachel Nugent
| religion = Non-denominational [[Protestant]]
}}

'''Brian Norton Baird''' (born March 7, 1956) is a former [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. Representative]] for {{ushr|WA|3}}, serving from 1999 until 2011. He is a member of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]]. The district comprises the counties of [[Thurston County, Washington|Thurston]], [[Lewis County, Washington|Lewis]], [[Pacific County, Washington|Pacific]], [[Wahkiakum County, Washington|Wahkiakum]], [[Cowlitz County, Washington|Cowlitz]], [[Clark County, Washington|Clark]], and [[Skamania County, Washington|Skamania]].

==Early life, education and career==
Baird was born in [[Chama, New Mexico]] to Edith S. and William N. (“Bill”) Baird, a town councilman and mayor.<ref>[http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~battle/reps/baird.htm 1]</ref> Dr. Baird received his B.S. from the [[University of Utah]], graduating [[Phi Beta Kappa]] in 1977. He continued on to the [[University of Wyoming]], receiving his M.S. and Ph.D. in clinical psychology.<ref name=autogenerated1 /> Dr. Baird is the former chairman of the Department of Psychology at [[Pacific Lutheran University]] in [[Tacoma, Washington]], and a licensed clinical psychologist. He has published a number of journal articles and has authored two books.

==U.S. House of Representatives==
===Committee assignments===
*'''[[United States House Committee on Science and Technology|Committee on Science and Technology]]'''
**[[United States House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment|Subcommittee on Energy and Environment]] (Chairman)
**[[United States House Science Subcommittee on Research and Science Education|Subcommittee on Research and Science Education]]
*'''[[United States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure|Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure]]'''
**[[United States House Transportation Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation|Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation]]
**[[United States House Transportation Subcommittee on Highways and Transit|Subcommittee on Highways and Transit]]
**[[United States House Transportation Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment|Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment]]

===Caucus memberships===
*Congressional Career and Technical Education Caucus (co-founder)
*Congressional Caucus to Control and Fight Methamphetamine (co-founder)
*Congressional National Parks Caucus (co-founder)
*Addiction, Treatment, and Recovery Caucus
*Community College Caucus
*Community Health Centers Caucus
*Congressional Boating Caucus
*Congressional Brain Injury Task Force
*Congressional Caucus on Intellectual Property Promotion and Piracy Prevention
*Congressional China Caucus
*Congressional Coast Guard Caucus
*Congressional Coastal Caucus
*Congressional Diabetes Caucus
*Congressional Fire Service Caucus
*Congressional Fitness Caucus
*Congressional Mental Health Caucus
*Congressional Native American Caucus
*Congressional Port Security Caucus
*Congressional Rural Caucus
*Congressional Ski and Snowboard Caucus
*Democratic Caucus
*Friends of New Zealand Caucus
*Hellenic Caucus
*House Education Caucus
*House Science, Technology, Engineernig and Math Education Caucus
*International Conservation Caucus
*Medical Malpractice Caucus
*New Democrat Caucus
*Northwest Energy Caucus
*Prochoice Caucus Democratic Task Force
*Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus
*U.S. China Working Group
*Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus
*Mountain West Caucus
*Middle East Economic Partnership Caucus

He had previously been a member of the [[United States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure|House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee]], the [[United States House Committee on Science|House Science Committee]], the [[United States House Committee on the Budget|House Budget Committee]], and the House Select Committee on Continuity in Government.

He served as a senior regional [[Whip (politics)|whip]] and on the Democratic Steering Committee. He was elected president of the 1998 Democratic Freshman Class.

Baird was a member of the [[New Democrat Coalition]].

During his time in Congress, he flew home nearly every weekend and hosted more than 300 town hall meetings.<ref>http://www.house.gov/baird/cs/faq.shtm</ref> He visited every high school, port, hospital and countless businesses and organizations in Southwest Washington.<ref name=autogenerated1>[http://www.house.gov/baird/bio/about.shtml Congressman Brian Baird :: Washington's 3rd Congressional District :: Biography Section]</ref>

Baird held over 300 town halls, or one for approximately every week and a half he was in office. Although they usually had around 50 participants, when held during passionate debates, they had up to 3000.
===2006===
Baird infuriated environmental constituents in 2006 when he publicly dressed down Oregon State University graduate student Daniel Donato at a field hearing over Donato’s use of statistics in a $300,000 federal study. The study, published in one of the most respected academic journals Science, concluded salvage logging had impeded forest regeneration on the massive Biscuit Fire in Oregon’s Siskiyou National Forest. At the time, Baird and U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., were co-sponsors of a bill that aimed to speed salvage logging on burned forests.

Baird insisted that his doctorate (in clinical psychology) qualified him to challenge Donato’s use of statistics, and even submitted his own rebuttal to the journal that had published Donato’s study. Bill Lunch, a political commentator and head of the political science department at OSU, has followed Baird’s career. He found the incident telling. “In an academic setting, one could imagine a fairly civil and enlightened discussion” about the use of statistics in the study, he said. “But of course, it was played out in a congressional committee.” Baird’s public grilling of Donato “has to have been calculated,” Lunch said. “It helped him in the more rural, natural resource-dependent areas of his district. He’s a professor of psychology, a student of human nature. He figured out what he needed to do early on.”
===2007===
Baird initially voted against giving the president the authority to go to [[Iraq War]], but came to support a continued U.S. effort in 2007 after a visit to the region. He continued to maintain that the war in Iraq was "one of the worst foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation," but also stated a belief in an [[op-ed]] published in [[The Seattle Times]] that Iraq "at long last begun to change substantially for the better" as a result of the surge. Baird advanced the argument that withdrawal timetables at this time would embolden insurgents, discourage cooperation between Iraqi political factions, and abdicate America's moral obligation to maintain order in the region.<ref name=reason>Baird, Brian. "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003850954_bairdop24.html Our troops have earned more time]", The Seattle Times, published August 24, 2007. Retrieved August 29, 2007.</ref>

On August 27, 2007, a capacity crowd of approximately 550 filled an auditorium at [[Fort Vancouver High School]] for a town hall meeting, with the many attendees voicing passionate disagreement with his stance.<ref name=westneat>Westneat, Danny. "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003858057_danny29.html The lone, and lonely, optimist]", [[The Seattle Times]], published August 29, 2007. Retrieved August 29, 2007.</ref> Baird requested police protection for the event, the first time he did so for an event of this type,<ref name=brettman>Brettman, Allan, and Jeff Mapes. "[http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1188282391177620.xml&coll=7&thispage=1 Crowd pounds Baird's Iraq stance]", [[The Oregonian]], published August 28, 2007. Retrieved August 29, 2007.</ref> and Baird also brought along a private bodyguard.<ref name=westneat /> The event continued well after the scheduled 9 p.m. conclusion,<ref name=brettman /> ultimately passing four hours of discussion.<ref name=westneat />

===2009===
During the 2009 Congressional recess, Baird held 5 town halls and 6 "tele-town halls" focused on health care. At the August 18 Vancouver town hall Baird was subjected to intense criticism of his support of and previous comments about his opposition to the bill by (among others) David Hedrick, a disabled (veteran) Marine. The video of Hedrick's remarks — remarks described as a "rant" by the Vancouver ''Columbian'' — had attracted over 1.3 million views on YouTube.com by February 18, 2010.<ref name=durbin>Durbin, Kathie. "[http://columbian.com/article/20090826/NEWS02/708269957/-1/NEWS Hedrick's rant at Baird health care forum goes viral]", The Columbian, Vancouver WA, published August 26, 2009. Retrieved September 9, 2009.</ref>

===Visit to Gaza Strip===
On February 19, 2009, Congressman Brian Baird, together with fellow congressman [[Keith Ellison (politician)|Keith Ellison]], (D-MN-05), visited [[Gaza]] to view firsthand the destruction from the [[Gaza War]], and to meet with international and local relief agencies. Others in the visit included [[Senator John Kerry]] (D-MA). This visit, which did not have the official sanction of the [[Obama Administration]], is the first time anyone from the U.S. government entered [[Gaza]] in more than three years.<ref>[http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/wa03_baird/morenews1/GazaTrip.shtml Brian Views Destruction in Gaza – Calls for Immediate Relief and Change in Policy]</ref> The Congressman had this to say about [[Gaza]]: {{cquote|''“The amount of physical destruction and the depth of human suffering here is staggering”.'' He continued, ''“Entire neighborhoods have been destroyed, schools completely leveled, fundamental water, sewer, and electricity facilities hit and relief agencies heavily damaged. The personal stories of children being killed in their homes or schools, entire families wiped out, and relief workers prevented from evacuating the wounded are heart wrenching – what went on here, and what is continuing to go on, is shocking and troubling beyond words.”''}}

After Baird's third visit to [[Gaza]] in February 2010, he called on the U.S. to end the blockade and to deliver humanitarian supplies, which could include withholding military aid from [[Israel]].<ref>{{cite web|author=“” |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3Y_AOOMtPQ |title=US Congressman wants Gaza blockade gone |publisher=YouTube |date= |accessdate=2010-08-29}}</ref> he said that the U.S. needed to be more serious about getting Israel to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

==Political campaigns==
Baird challenged Republican incumbent [[Linda Smith (American politician)|Linda Smith]] in [[U.S. House election, 1996|1996]] and lost by only 113 votes. Smith gave up the seat to make an unsuccessful bid for the [[United States Senate]] in 1998. Baird jumped into the race and defeated State Senator Don Benton with 54.7 percent of the vote. He never faced another race even that close, and was re-elected five times.

On December 9, 2009, Baird announced he would not run for re-election in 2010.<ref>Durbin, Kathie. "[http://www.columbian.com/news/2009/dec/10/baird-wont-seek-re-election/ Baird won’t seek re-election]", The Columbian, Vancouver WA, published December 9, 2009. Retrieved December 28, 2010.</ref>

==Electoral history==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin:0.5em ; font-size:95%"
|+ {{ushr|Washington|3|}}: Results 1996–2008<ref name="clerkresults">{{cite web |url=http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html |title=Election Statistics |accessdate=2008-01-10 |publisher=Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives }}</ref>
!|Year
!
!|Democrat
!|Votes
!|Pct
!
!|Republican
!|Votes
!|Pct
!
!|3rd Party
!|Party
!|Votes
!|Pct
!
|-
|[[U.S. House election, 1996|1996]]
|
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} |Brian Baird
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} align="right" |122,230
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} |50%
|
|{{Party shading/Republican}} |'''[[Linda Smith (American politician)|Linda Smith]]'''
|{{Party shading/Republican}} align="right" |123,117
|{{Party shading/Republican}} |50%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|[[U.S. House election, 1998|1998]]
|
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} |'''Brian Baird'''
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} align="right" |120,364
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} |55%
|
|{{Party shading/Republican}} |Don Benton
|{{Party shading/Republican}} align="right" |99,855
|{{Party shading/Republican}} |45%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|[[U.S. House election, 2000|2000]]
|
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} |'''Brian Baird'''
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} align="right" |159,428
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} |56%
|
|{{Party shading/Republican}} |{{nowrap|Trent R. Matson}}
|{{Party shading/Republican}} align="right" |114,861
|{{Party shading/Republican}} |41%
|
|{{Party shading/Libertarian}} |Erne Lewis
|{{Party shading/Libertarian}} |[[Libertarian Party (United States)|Libertarian]]
|{{Party shading/Libertarian}} align="right" |8,375
|{{Party shading/Libertarian}} align="right" |3%
|
|-
|[[U.S. House election, 2002|2002]]
|
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} |'''Brian Baird'''
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} align="right" |119,264
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} |62%
|
|{{Party shading/Republican}} |{{nowrap|[[Joseph Zarelli]]}}
|{{Party shading/Republican}} align="right" |74,065
|{{Party shading/Republican}} |38%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|[[U.S. House election, 2004|2004]]
|
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} |'''Brian Baird'''
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} align="right" |193,626
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} |62%
|
|{{Party shading/Republican}} |{{nowrap|Thomas A. Crowson}}
|{{Party shading/Republican}} align="right" |119,027
|{{Party shading/Republican}} |38%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|[[U.S. House election, 2006|2006]]
|
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} |'''Brian Baird'''
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} align="right" |147,065
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} |63%
|
|{{Party shading/Republican}} |{{nowrap|Michael Messmore}}
|{{Party shading/Republican}} align="right" |85,915
|{{Party shading/Republican}} |37%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|[[U.S. House election, 2008|2008]]
|
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} |'''Brian Baird'''
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} align="right" |216,701
|{{Party shading/Democratic}} |64%
|
|{{Party shading/Republican}} |{{nowrap|Michael Delavar}}
|{{Party shading/Republican}} align="right" |121,828
|{{Party shading/Republican}} |36%
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{end box}}

==The stock act==
Brian Baird introduced the STOCK Act which would prohibit members of Congress, their employees, and Executive Branch staff members from profiting from nonpublic information they obtain through their positions. They would be prohibited from buying or selling securities, swaps, or commodity futures based on nonpublic information they obtain through their jobs; prohibited from sharing non-public information about legislative action for purposes of investing or profiting from investment; and required to report investment transactions valued in excess of $1,000.

“It is not explicitly stated in Congress’ ethics code,” said Baird. “And we exempted ourselves from reporting requirements that apply to hedge fund managers and corporate CEOs. They have to report within 48 hours if they make a significant trade. We have to report once a year, retroactively. In fact if you make a trade in January, it doesn’t have to be reported until the following May.”

Baird changed his bill to allow for reporting to be delayed for 90 days. "Really, it should be 48 hours," he said. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/pelosi-boehner-insider-trading/2011/11/17/id/418450]</ref>

==Books==
* {{cite book
|title=Are We Having Fun Yet?: Enjoying the Outdoors With Partners, Families, and Groups
|first=Brian N.
|last=Baird
|coauthors=illustrations by David Horsey
|location=[[Seattle]]
|publisher=[[The Mountaineers (Pacific NW)|Mountaineers Books]]
|year=1995
|isbn=978-0-89886-449-6
}}

* {{cite book
|title=The Internship, Practicum, and Field Placement Handbook: A Guide for the Helping Professions
|first=Brian N.
|last=Baird
|location=[[New Jersey]]
|publisher=[[Prentice Hall]]
|year=1996
|edition=fourth edition, 2004
|isbn=978-0-13-118116-8
}}

* {{cite book
|title=Character Politics and Responsibility
|first=Brian N.
|last=Baird
|publisher=[[Lightning Source UK Ltd]]
|year=2010
|isbn=978-0-578-06642-4
}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.brianbaird.com/ Brian Baird for U.S. Congress] ''official campaign site''
*{{CongLinks | congbio = b001229 | votesmart = BC039718 | washpo = Brian_Baird | govtrack = 400011 | opencong = 400011_Brian_Baird | cspan = 45981 | ontheissuespath = House/Brian_Baird.htm | surge = | legistorm = 110/Rep_Brian_Norton_Baird.html | fec = H6WA03135 | opensecrets = N00007936 | followthemoney = | nyt = | findagrave = }}

{{start box}}
{{s-par|us-hs}}
{{USRepSuccessionBox |
state=Washington|
district=3 |
before=[[Linda Smith (American politician)|Linda Smith]] |
after=[[Jaime Herrera Beutler]] |
years=1999–2011}}
{{end box}}

{{Persondata
|NAME=Baird, Brian Norton
|ALTERNATIVE NAMES=
|SHORT DESCRIPTION=United States Congressman
|DATE OF BIRTH=1956-03-07
|PLACE OF BIRTH=[[Chama, New Mexico]]
|DATE OF DEATH=
|PLACE OF DEATH=
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Baird, Brian Norton}}
[[Category:1956 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Pacific Lutheran University faculty]]
[[Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Washington (state)]]
[[Category:People from Rio Arriba County, New Mexico]]
[[Category:University of Utah alumni]]
[[Category:University of Wyoming alumni]]
[[Category:Washington (state) Democrats]]
[[Category:People from Edmonds, Washington]]

[[de:Brian Baird]]
[[it:Brian Baird]]
[[sv:Brian Baird]]