If an exploratory test is done for a condition sufficiently rare that a positive is quite likely to be a false positive, then a positive result should not, in the absence of other evidence, lead to an invasive procedure. What action should be taken depends on the particulars of the condition, but just monitoring for actual symptoms of the condition or maybe trying a different test would almost certainly be more sensible options.<p>The article seems to be decrying additional testing, which is basically just additional information gathering, on the basis that some people might make dumb decisions based on the information. That&#x27;s probably true, but I don&#x27;t think it means that more information is a bad thing.