 I believe that with certain circumstances that we face in modern tendencies of research and science and privacy there is more pressure, I would say, when it comes to science and conducting research and gathering information because it's a new field and probably not all boundaries are established well. I kind of think that does apply. I've heard in the past that many people who don't treat their science ethically it's because they're chasing the limelight in scientific publications searching for, you know, the spotlight when it comes to that and I think universities kind of endorse it as well because obviously they'd wanted to, it's publicity for themselves and I think universities have a responsibility to kind of step away from that want to be noticed more than, you know, having proper science. I believe yes. University has certain responsibility because it's a large institution it has a lot of fantastic extraordinary professors and researchers and specialists and it provides facilities and when you provide facilities I believe it's worth establishing certain boundaries for quality assurance and privacy I guess. No, I especially think that's necessary because I've worked with data and it's just like if you need to trust just on one person we're university students, me especially, I want to found out myself so maybe I want to redo what he has been done to check if his results are valid. So I think it should be available. I believe that the data certainly has to be made available so a well educated or a person that has general interest in the matter can check the data and come up with conclusions for himself and not just trust the conclusion of somebody else because it can easily be biased. They have to be encouraged to publish as much as possible. The more research we make, not just in the Tilburg University, not just in the Netherlands in the world the more knowledge we will be available for the common people So I think that really good based research is necessary as much as we can. No, I don't think. I think we should look at quality. You can spend four or five years for one research to have a better quality instead of short term papers that doesn't make any sense so I think quality is more important than the amount of publication. I think in a perfect world that would be great but I do know that it's much more complicated than just saying someone else could test it and you can go. I think there's much more involved than what's really presenting itself now things like time, effort. So I think it should be a balance between what is ethical and what is achievable. If a researcher were to take up, let's say, a research topic I think he or she should consider his ability, his or her abilities to display data, to calculate data and if that researcher doesn't possess these abilities or skills then I think he or she should maybe change the research topic but on the other hand if you say you were to leave the data to some maybe other people who are more specialized in statistics that could work. Depending on the result that they want to have it wouldn't be a bad idea to leave the statistics analysis to a master like to a person that really have a domain on that area.