My objection to that question (noted in the first comment) and all other similar ones still stands—these types of questions are terrible by design.
- Firstly, they are by definition out-of-date as soon as they're posted, as we're just copying information from somewhere else. Who has the time to go back and fact-check to see if something's changed?
- Secondly, they're perpetually incomplete, as there will always be some university that we haven't covered.
- Thirdly, this is a Q&A site, not an encyclopedia... people don't come here looking for lists of information, they come here to get answers to a specific question that they can't get elsewhere. This information—again, by definition— is available elsewhere; the society websites! Why on Earth would we take it on ourselves to replicate something here? If it happens to be that there isn't a society that defines "ethical standards" for a given field, then who the heck are we to define the standards?
I was unconvinced at the time that this was an effort worth pursuing, and in retrospect it seems that my concerns were not unfounded. If you can convince me I'm wrong, please do so, but as it stands I remain unconvinced that this is worth doing.