The return of individual genetic results from clinical research varies considerably by study (Wynn et al., 2015). This variability is partly dependent on study context, such as the relationship between investigator and participant, available resources, institutional norms, and investigator preference (Jarvik et al., 2014). For example, a genomic research study where physicians provide individual medical recommendations or administer treatment to participants has different ethical obligations than a research study doing genomic analysis on samples from de-identified biobank participants. One area without consensus is the return of secondary findings (SF) in a research setting (Wolf et al., 2015). Return of a selected consensus set of SF is recommended in the clinical setting by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) (Green et al., 2013;Kalia et al., 2017).One way to inform policy on the return of SF in the research setting is to conduct research on patient knowledge and preferences.In one study conducted at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center (CC), where the current study was also conducted,