The regulatory scope of Human Research Ethics Committees can be problematic for a variety of reasons. Some scholars have argued the ethics approval process, for example, is antithetical to certain disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, while others are willing to give it qualified support. This article uses a case study to cast the debate about how to address the weaknesses in ethics approval processes into the context of an ever-increasing level of managerialist interference in the work carried out by researchers. The problems attached to the former are unlikely to be resolved, while the latter is allowed to continue.