Evident from the responses to the author's paper is the fact that other researchers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia have had cause to consider the issues that contribute to the complexities of involving people with intellectual disabilities, who may not be able to provide their own consent, in research. Comments by Aman and Handen, Ramcharan, and McVilly and Dalton provide both contrasting and complementary perspectives on how to achieve a balance between ensuring that people with intellectual disability are not exploited, and promoting their right to participate in research, even when the benefits may not be direct or immediate. The responses converge on three issues which are discussed in this article: (1) possible solutions to the dilemmas of informed consent; (2) the relationship between researchers and Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs); and (3) the need to investigate ethics committee review processes and outcomes.