Oklahoma State University President David Schmidly made some good points in defending his school’s federal funding in a recent letter to U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn.

But Schmidly’s letter does not eliminate the need for more accountability of research funding, nor does it validate congressional earmarks.

This summer, Coburn asked 113 U.S. universities to provide information on federal funding they received since 2000, how they account for those funds and what standards they hold researchers to in the spending of those funds.

Only a little more than half the colleges responded by mid-September, and Schmidly, in his written response last week, defended the funds OSU received since he became president in 2003, $52 million.

Schmidly pointed out OSU developed flexible body armor for soldiers in Iraq from a $3 million grant secured by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla. Schmidly said the university did not have time to pursue a conventional grant because the development of the armor was rapid, the need imminent.

Schmidly also pointed out that a disparity exists in federal research funding, with five states getting almost half the funds, and Oklahoma is not one of the five. Schmidly said earmarks provided OSU a way to equalize the disparity.

Those reasons still do not mean universities should not account for the funds they receive.

Those reasons also do not validate the way earmarks are used most often — to fund politicians’ pet projects and circumvent normal budgetary procedures. In 2005, 15,000 earmarks were approved at a total cost of $47 billion.

Coburn is not wrong to ask for greater government accountability of that $47 billion. And earmarks are simply the wrong way to fund projects.
If emergency funds are needed to develop body armor, then Congress can pass emergency funding.

If disparities exist in awarding grants, that should be addressed, too.

But we don’t need earmarks. For years, the federal government — at taxpayers’ expense — has funded projects not because of their importance to our country’s general welfare, but because most of the time they are politicians’ pet projects used to impress constituents at re-election time.