Demands for Cooked Results. Most analysts desire at least the option to act as objective technicians. Faced with the task of evaluating alternative courses of action, they want the freedom to make reasonable assumptions, apply appropriate techniques, report their best estimates, and make logical recommendations Unfortunately, clients sometimes hold strong beliefs that lead them to reject their analysts findings not on the basis of method, but solely on the basis of conclusions. If the client simply ignores the analysis, then the analyst will undoubtedly be disappointed but generally faces no great ethical problem-the analyst is simply one source of advice and not the final arbiter of truth. The ethical problem arises when the client. Perhaps feeling the need for analytical support in the political fray, demands that the analyst alter the work to reach a different conclusion. Should the analyst ever agree to "cook the analysis so that it better supports the client's position?