What does "accountability" mean from him? That could be many things.

Does it mean more audits to find out if slightly sloppy bookeeping took place? (i.e. yet another stick to beat researchers with.) Are we going to see more outrages like the Thomas Butler case now, put researchers in jail for not crossing every t because of the utter lack of backbone in university administrations?

Does it mean more investigations of misconduct? Does it mean doing away with the 6 year limit on investigations into scientific misconduct/fraud at NIH so that it is plausible that a significant number of them are uncovered?

Does it mean accountability for results being translated into useful products for medicine?

Does it mean accountability for actually doing what your grant proposal says you would do? Will researchers who promise the moon but deliver a figurative dirty kleenex get penalized so that honest grant writers can get access to money more easily?

Does it mean accountability for showing results and actually solving problems so that researchers who do solve a problem can get funding for their next project instead of being penalized, de facto, for not plugging into a gravy train area?

Does it mean, maybe, that the research community will hold NIH/NIAID and congress publicly accountable for the ridiculously tilted spending toward politically correct disease research, leaving others underfunded?

Is he going to make some waves, or is he going to spoon-feed us more oatmeal from a grey bowl?