Depends on the importance the university places on research over teaching. Probably also depends on the share the university receives of the research funding the researcher brings in.
thanks for the question. in my university, there is such a policy that not all the load is lecturing. part of it is conducting research and supervisoring research projects.
A logical balance between lecturing and researching is a prerequisite to a lecturer's success at university. Lack of equilibrium between the two will not be beneficial to both teachers and university administrators.
It's pretty common in U.S. colleges and universities to "buy out" teaching load with research grant money. If instruction can be replaced with less expensive labor, it's a win for the institution, as well as for the grant recipient who should then have more time to devote to the funded research.
It depends on the work policies in the universities, in particular of the professorial status and the teaching rank; Thus, in some areas a principal teacher has commitments to the research and this is reflected in the teaching burden.
One can revisit university policies on that. Research is one of the core functions of the university, along with instruction. It is therefore important to strike balance between the two if a university is to function well.
There should be to allow a balance of time and attention between research work and teaching load. It depends on the policies of the university but such support to a funded research will facilitate the delivery of commitments according to timeline.