study also reveal that parents found newborn screening to be a beneficial and necessary tool to prevent treatable diseases. To address the false positive issue, researchers from the University of Maryland, Baltimore and Genetic Alliance established a check-list to assist health care providers communicate with parents about a screen-positive result. Secret genetic research Controversy has also erupted in some countries over collection and storage of blood or DNA samples by government agencies during the routine newborn blood screen. In the United States, it was revealed that Texas had collected and stored blood and DNA samples on millions of newborns without the parents' knowledge or consent. These samples were then used by the state for genetic experiments and to set up a database to catalog all of the samples/newborns. , samples obtained without parents' consent between 2002 and 2009 were slated to be destroyed following the settlement of "a lawsuit filed by parents against the Texas Department of Health Services and Texas A&M; for secretly storing and doing research on newborn blood samples." A similar legal case was filed against the State of Minnesota. Over 1 million newborn bloodspot samples were destroyed in 2011 "when the state's Supreme Court found that storage and use of blood spots beyond newborn screening panels was in violation of the state's genetic privacy laws.". Nearly was required to be paid by the state for the attorney's fees of the 21 families who advanced the lawsuit. An advocacy group that has taken a position against research on newborn blood screening data without parental consent is the Citizens' Council for Health Freedom, who take the position that newborn health screening for "a specific set of newborn genetic conditions" is a very different matter than storing the data or those DNA samples indefinitely to "use them for genetic research without parental knowledge or consent." Bioethics As additional tests are discussed for addition to the panels, issues arise. Many question whether the expanded testing still falls under the requirements necessary to justify the additional tests. Many of the new diseases being tested for are rare and have no known treatment, while some of the diseases need not be treated until later in life. This raises more issues, such as: if there is no available treatment for the disease should we test for it at all? And if we do, what do we tell the families of those with children