A research institute like IHS always has an incentive to publish as much of its research as possible, no matter who the client is. While there are sometimes reservations against an a priori publication on the side of the client, the default setting should be to publish rather than not to. But there will always be studies that are so sensitive that (immediate) publication is not a viable option. This must be possible. Compulsory publication would lead to those studies not being commissioned in the first place. If we want more transparency, then recipients (journalists, citizens) must deal more sensibly with the results of studies: Isolated results are not truths, a lot depends on methodology, replicability, and sincerity of the authors. This requires a high degree of competence from the reader. Evidence is becoming increasingly important, and it is necessary to deal with it better and more calmly.