22 HASTINGS CENTER REPORT March-April 2018 D uring the course of biomedical research, re- searchers sometimes obtain information on participants that is outside the aim of the study but may nonetheless be relevant to the partici- pants. These incidental findings, as they are known, have been the focus of a substantial amount of dis- cussion in the bioethics literature, and a consensus has begun to emerge about what researchers should do in light of the possibility of incidental findings. A consensus, however, is not necessarily correct. In this article, we address the common view that reporting of incidental findings should be based primarily on the possibility of medical benefit, factoring in the findings’ validity, clinical actionability, and signifi- cance to health or reproduction. While such medi- cal beneficence should not be discarded, the need to give proper attention to participants’ autonomy, privacy, and interests (especially considering discus- sion of participants’ right not to know) suggests an alternative standard for when to report incidental findings: even if they are of no direct medical ben- efit, incidental findings should be reported based on the extent to which the participant can be expected to comprehend the information. We will offer a pre- liminary defense of this alternative as best respecting participants’ autonomy and privacy and promoting their interests. However, we acknowledge that the standard would face significant practical barriers, The “best-medical-interests” standard for reporting findings does not go far enough. Research subjects have a right to know about any comprehensible piece of information about them that is generated by research in which they are participating. An even broader standard may sometimes be appropriate: if subjects agree to accept information that they may not understand, then all information may be disclosed. Know by G. OwEN SCHAEFER AND JulIAN SAVulESCu The Right to A Revised Standard for Reporting Incidental Findings G. Owen Schaefer and Julian Savulescu, “The Right to Know: A Re- vised Standard for Reporting Incidental Findings,” Hastings Center Report 48, no. 2 (2018): 22-32. DOI: 10.1002/hast.836