Erratum to: Incidental findings of uncertain significance: To know or not to know – that is not the question
© The Author(s). 2016
Received: 13 May 2016
Accepted: 21 June 2016
Published: 23 June 2016
The original article was published in BMC Medical Ethics 2016 17:13
Following publication of the original article in BMC Medical Ethics , it was brought to my attention that the following sentences are incorrect:
“Moreover, genetics professionals appear to think that to know is better than not to know  even when the information is actionable .” This sentence should read: Moreover, genetics professionals appear to think that to know is better than not to know  even when the information is not actionable .
“Let me therefore now turn to arguments for a right to know before summarizing the arguments in Table 1.”
This sentence should read: Let me therefore now turn to arguments for a right not to know before summarizing the arguments in Table 1.
I apologise for the inconvenience this may have caused.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.