Erratum: Personal medicine—the new banking crisis

Journal name:
Nature Biotechnology
Volume:
30,
Page:
466
Year published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nbt0512-466a
Published online

Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 141147 (2012); published online 8 February 2012; corrected after print 24 February 2012

In the version of the article originally published, the citation in Figure 1 was given as ref. 14; it should be ref. 2. In Table 1, CARTaGENE was misspelled, and the descriptions in column 3 of this repository, BioVu's and the International HapMap were incorrect: CARTaGENE should be described as “A repository of socio-demographic, health data and biological samples from 20,000 citizens of the province of Quebec in Canada”; BioVu's description should read “Repository of DNA samples and de-identified health information from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center's electronic system”; and the International HapMap description should read “International collaboration with the ultimate goal of developing a haplotype map of the human genome.” In addition, the amount of the Havasupai settlement was incorrectly stated to be $700 million. It should read $700,000. Finally, the work of Simon et al. (ref. 8) on biobank consent models was incorrectly described. The text should read, “For example, a recent US focus group and survey study found a public that preferred a broad approach to consent over ones involving additional choices. But the preference was marginal, thus noting the lack of consensus on these issues. Indeed, as noted by the authors of the study: '54% of our survey and 42% of our focus group participants could be seen as preferring a control/choice-promoting model (e.g., categorical or study-specific consent) over a control/choice demoting model (e.g., broad consent)8'.” The errors have been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

Additional data