The author argues that existing research on the outcome of psychoanalysis and the psychoanalytic therapies is sufficient to claim a solid basis in scientific evidence for psychodynamically oriented clinical work. She explores sociocultural trends that increase the probability that analytic therapists and academic researchers will misunderstand one another, and she discusses the problematic status of the randomized controlled trial as the "gold standard" of research. She urges readers to educate themselves about what the outcome research actually shows, to support empirical investigations of psychoanalytic theories and practice, to make alliances with therapists of other orientations, and to try to contribute to changing the terms in which policymakers and the public frame their understanding of mental health and mental suffering.