In a laboratory, delays are not always counted in weeks or months. Sometimes they are expressed in an enzyme that does not arrive, in a sample that loses the cold chain, in an experiment that needs to be redesigned “with what is available,” or in a publication that is delayed due to the lack of a key reagent. Two Argentinian researchers decided to take this silent and everyday brake out of the back room and put it on the global table.
Lilia Stubrin and Gabriela Bortzboth experts from the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (Conicet) at the Research Center for Transformation (Cenit) of the National University of San Martín (Unsam), published together with Rafael Antafrom the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), an article in the academic journal Natural biotechnology in which they warn that the Importing biological materials for research purposes acts as a concrete – and underestimated – obstacle to the development of biotechnology in the southern hemisphere. At the same time, in regional comparison Argentina appears to be the country with the highest cost overruns when importing organic inputs.
The point is not insignificant: While discussions about the technology divide usually focus on talent, infrastructure or funding, the work focuses on a fundamental connection without which nothing begins. In the article, they point out that despite major structural challenges, there is a flatter and more stubborn obstacle: To procure imported inputs at reasonable costs, in acceptable times and with manageable regulatory burdensan essential prerequisite for the start of research and innovation.
In dialogue with THE NATIONStubrin summarizes the problem with a clear definition: It is a “silent barrier” because although it affects scientists, companies and start-ups every day, it rarely appears in public discussion or on the central agenda of development policy in the sector. “If inputs, reagents and biological materials are not available to you on a timely basis and at a reasonable cost, research, product development and innovation cannot begin or be competitive.“, emphasizes the economist.
He explains that the phenomenon occurs behind the closed doors of laboratories and companies, circulating in informal conversations but remaining outside the public policy radar, despite having a direct impact on scientific productivity and industrial competitiveness. And if this diagnosis applies to much of Latin America, The Argentine case adds further complexity.
According to the study, comparing nine countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, cost overruns compared to the United States for importing biological inputs range from 24% to 152%, with Argentina being the highest. On average, the region has to expect a surcharge of 58%. That is, even if the import times are not the worst Final cost becomes a decisive obstacle.
The political scientist Bortz provides figures and practical experience. He explains that in Argentina, general import arrangements – with a formal importer and payment of all fees – usually take between 20 and 30 days. However, if the import takes place via the public science system under tax exemption, the deadlines are extended. “Today, these times can be at least 60 days and this depends largely on the type of product, its origin and whether additional regulatory checks are required.“, he emphasizes.
Added to this delay are less visible but crucial factors, such as the high logistics costs that force consolidation of goods at the point of origin, processing times within the scientific institutions themselves and the lack of sufficient administrative capacity. “If the researcher has already submitted the application but the process is delayed within the institution, these 60 days can be further extended. And in many cases, the researcher has to manage the entire process alone.“, he warns.
This framework completely changes the daily logic of public and private laboratories. While countries like the United States use minimum inventory (you buy today, arrive in days or hours, and pay later), in Argentina you often have to pay in advance and wait weeks or months. This difference is also exacerbated by macroeconomic volatility.
“When you finally have the money, you often can’t buy what you wanted to buy because prices have changed or the dollar has changed,” Bortz summarizes. The consequences are direct: laboratories that have oversized inventories “as a precaution,” experiments that are canceled due to lack of supplies, and research plans that shrink and become less ambitious.
“Biological windows are lost, experiments are redesigned based on the available data, and times are constantly rescheduled,” he describes. For startups and biotechnology companies, the effects are even more sensitive: every delay affects the companies Time to market (the time it takes for a development to actually hit the market), delaying validations, pilot productions, deliveries to customers, or key milestones in front of investors.
The work published in Natural biotechnology It also shows that the problem is not limited to time or cost, but a Lack of comprehensive governance. The import of biological materials goes through several organizations – health, customs, tax and logistics – but there is no end-to-end management of the process. Each actor only sees a part, creating black boxes, additional transaction costs and greater uncertainty.
Stubrin recognizes that Argentina has achieved significant institutional advances compared to other countries in the region, such as the Register of Scientific and Technological Organizations and Units (Roecyt), which allows the import of research inputs with tax exemption and a specific and digitalized bureaucratic circuit. In the comparative analysis, this type of tool appears as an innovation that occurs almost exclusively in the Argentine case.
However, he makes it clear that this is a partial solution. The Roecyt acts as a science policy instrument and primarily benefits the public research system, while biotechnology companies and startups are largely left out and have to import under the general regulation with a high tax burden.
In the simulation used in the study, an input that costs $4,000 in the United States is nationalized in Argentina at a cost of nearly $10,000, even before the retailer adds its own margins. “This has a significant impact on the competitiveness of science and industry,” emphasizes Stubrin.
Added to this scenario is a characteristic feature of the Argentine case: instability. Of the nine countries analyzed, Argentina was the only one that required repeated updating of its diagnosis of the import of biological material between 2022 and 2024 due to constant changes in permits, payment conditions abroad and administrative regulations.
The combined effect of high costs, uncertainty and ongoing delays ultimately leads to decisions with major consequences. “We are already seeing companies moving some of their research and development or operations to countries where access to inputs is more predictable or cheaper,” warns Bortz.
In this context, the published article proposes a number of possible improvements, such as the centralization of process monitoring, the modernization and harmonization of regulations, the digitalization of procedures and the extension of tax benefits also to the innovative private sector. Because, the authors agree, without timely and reasonable effort, biotechnology cannot develop its full potential, no matter how much talent or infrastructure is available.
About The Author
