Universities have long served as centers for scientific inquiry, yet they are increasingly burdened by bureaucratic oversight mechanisms that, rather than facilitating research, often obstruct it. One of the most contentious manifestations of this trend is the expansion of research ethics boards (REBs). Originally designed to protect research participants, these boards have evolved into rigid bureaucratic structures that impose excessive procedural burdens on researchers. This study employs an autoethnographic methodology to critically examine the role of REBs in academic institutions and their broader impact on scholarly inquiry. Three categories emerged from the analysis: (1) strong emotions, (2) rigidity, and; (3) barriers to scientific inquiry. This study makes three primary contributions to knowledge. First, it builds on the established autoethnographic critique of REBs, providing a unique, researcher-centered perspective on ethics governance. Second, it highlights the emotional and psychological toll of the REB process, revealing how frustration and apathy deter research engagement. Third, it underscores the urgent need for reform, advocating for a more proportionate, flexible, and researcher-friendly ethics review process to ensure that ethical oversight remains a facilitator, rather than an inhibitor, of scientific progress.