Prohibit the words “accountability” and “transparency” in the oratory of academic governance and university chieftains might be left speechless.

Let it all hang out, openness and candor, everything above board — these are dominant themes on higher-ed rostrums. In these cynical times, universities, along with other institutions, are regarded with suspicion. In response come vows of accountability and transparency (A&T, from here on). There’s even an association to promote academic A&T, the Voluntary System of Accountability, sponsored by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and “the public higher education community.” The stated aim is “to improve public understanding of how public colleges and universities operate,” with the focus on costs, programs, student opinions, and academic outcomes.

The effort is commendable, but barely begins to open up important information that the public has a right to know concerning both public and private institutions, particularly involving research-related deals between universities and industry. (Yes, the private institutions, too, since their research capacity is heavily financed by public money.) In this area, silence and opacity, rather than A&T, often prevail, with pious references to proprietary interests, confidentiality, privacy, and contractual obligations. I’ve many times heard graduate students and postdocs speak angrily of the ethical stance of their mentors — but, at these vulnerable stages of their careers, off the record —for heaven’s sake. Getting tagged as “disgruntled” is no career booster.

Universities commonly require faculty members to report all outside business dealings, and to declare possible conflicts of interest with academic duties. But the information is usually tightly held, which means that a lab chief who’s moonlighting on campus for a private firm can neglect his/her academic responsibilities with little chance of discovery. Profs are not supposed to exploit their graduate students for commercial purposes, but without openness on commercial ties, who knows? Is a colleague surreptitiously fishing for information of commercial value or just engaging in professional chit-chat? Without knowledge of who’s working for whom, you can’t be sure.

Nearly 500 startup firms were launched last year by American universities — a record number. But are the budding entrepreneurs properly attending to their academic duties? After getting singed many times, major scientific and medical journals require prospective authors to disclose conflicts of interest. But the rule is difficult to enforce, sometimes ignored, and usually unaccompanied by penalties for violation — such as exclusion from the journal.

As a reporter, I’ve been told that details of an academic-commercial deal are confidential, including who’s paying the salaries of university faculty.

Even so, there’s been an upgrade in recent years in tighter rules and stricter enforcement, mainly because of embarrassing episodes that stained institutional and professional reputations, such as the death of a young volunteer in a misguided drug trial at the University of Pennsylvania in 1999. There’s nothing like scandal to elevate behavior.

But there’s still a long way go. When it comes to accountability and transparency in commercialization of science, universities tend to follow the money. When queried, they fall back on their own version of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”