In 1998 in Canada and Quebec, two policies regarding research ethics transformed the evaluation approach of clinical research following the Code of Nuremberg and subsequent Declarations of the World Medical Association. Even after almost ten years of implementation, these policies still arouse debate in the research milieu. If for many, these debates essentially reflect the inherent difficulties in any implementation process, in which resistance to change and the modification of policies and action plans, we believe that there is a more fundamental stake, rarely mentioned or debated, that of the choice of governance. In this article we start by proposing a classification of the different modes of governance: professional deontology, and ethical and administrative rights. Secondly, we show how the debates and criticisms addressed to the Research Ethics Committee of Quebec and Canada attains their full meaning in light of this basic stake: the divergence of the mode of governance to favour ethics in research.