Funding for university research nationwide is dwindling, but some researchers say it could work in their favor.

The federal budget, approved by U.S. Congress earlier this month, cuts funding for National Institutes of Health — which provides grants to university researchers — by about 1 percent or about $260 million for the 2011 fiscal year.

Despite the loss in funding, some researchers say the cut, paired with more flexibility, might improve research quality.

“There’s not an obvious correlation between the quality of science being done and the amount of money being spent on it,” said Paul Davies, researcher and theoretical physicist at Arizona State University. “If you’re spending a lot of money there’s a bit of a disincentive to think clearly about the problem.”

Davies said researchers do their best work if they are forced to think clearly about what they want to do and how they want to do it.

“It would be better to have more flexible money even if there’s less of it,” he said.

But not all researchers agree with Davies.

Barbara Entwisle, vice chancellor for research at UNC-CH, said she is concerned about the cuts.

“There’s a lot of high-quality research that’s not being funded as things stand now, so it’s hard to see a benefit for providing even less funding,” she said. “In some cases that I know of, only the top 10 percent of the people applying for funding are being funded.”

In 2010, UNC-CH received more than $340 million from the institutes.

Steven Leath, vice president for research for the UNC system, said the institute’s cuts will not be helpful.

“NIH has a very rigorous review process and the funding rate for NIH money has gone way down, making it extremely competitive already,” he said.

Leath said there is already not enough money for many quality research projects.

Funding from the institute cannot be replaced because it is the largest and most important funding source for UNC, he said.

Many university researchers across the nation are competing for grants from the National Institutes of Health.

“NIH supports the most basic research in biomedical science, and any reduction in it inhibits our ability to research,” said Kim Moreland, associate vice chancellor for research administration at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Moreland said the university experienced growth in research funding this year.

“Additional funding allows us to explore additional avenues or expand research that is in its infancy and beginning to grow,” she said.

Davies said low funding for research is inevitable.

“At the end of the day, the country has got to live within its means.”

Contact the State & National Editor at state@dailytarheel.com.