Sinclair (1998) identifies nine unique features to the code:

1) setting objectives based upon a critical analysis of the international and interdisciplinary literature on codes of ethics.

2) inclusion of an overriding ethic of a contract with society

3) use of an empirical methodology in developing the code

4) organisation of the code around ethical principles

5) differential weighting of the four ethical principles

6) inclusion of a model for ethical decisions making

7) inclusion of the role of personal conscience

8) inclusion of both minimal and idealised standards

9) presentation of the code as an umbrella document

O'Neil (1998) suggests that the code leads to better teaching of ethics due to the fact that it is an "overriding principle" approach that applies universal (Kantian) rules with a sensitivity to context. In contrast, the "moral Dilemmas" approach leads to situations of compromise between competing 'legitimate' rules.

Stark (1998) identifies it as a "best practice" model that focuses on principles, values & standards not a "worst practice" model that focuses on rules, regulations & proscriptions / prescriptions.

Thus we can extend it to other areas / disciplines and bring about change through external standards and references.

However, the interpretation and application is unclear ... what does dignity, integrity & quality of research mean?

Stark recognises various views, including 'feminist' ones that: -encourage consultation & collaboration with stakeholders
-respect for cultural & institutional value differences
-responsibility for social and individual needs
-recognition of connotative meanings (i.e., gender language)

She also recognises that right to withdraw appears to end when the data has been collected (i.e., Nuchanalth blood)

Peer review is it ethical? what about "network nepotism", "gate keeping" and possible theft of ideas?