In hundreds of interviews and articles, Stefansson was attacked for – and just as vigorously defended – the IHD and his broader approach. He argued that far from supplanting traditional data sources or researchers, deCODE was creating a new scale of resources and opportunities including for the health service; benefitting the community by repatriating and employing Icelandic scientists in cutting-edge fields; and following international norms of consent while setting new standards in large-scale research, with oversight by public bioethics and data protection bodies and novel data and privacy protection protocols. Critics at the time remained unconvinced. Stanford bioethicist Hank Greely concluded simply that "the Icelandic model is not a good precedent for similar research elsewhere."