Lino Barañao: "They're destroying the scientific apparatus in Argentina, and no one's saying anything."

He was the only minister to survive two opposing administrations, those of Cristina Fernández and Mauricio Macri , as head of the Science, Technology, and Innovation portfolio. A doctor in chemistry, a researcher at Conicet ( National Council of Experts), and a former trade unionist for 18 years, Lino Barañao visited Mendoza to participate in the workshop on the Knowledge Economy and New Technological Trends, organized by the National University of Cuyo.

Regarding his visit, Barañao spoke with Los Andes about the current state of science and was categorical: "We are experiencing a process of destruction of the scientific apparatus," he declared. He also warned of a new "brain drain" and stated that he is concerned about the apathy of the scientific community, but even more concerned about the silence of the opposition in the face of the dismantling and systematic defunding by the national government.

-At the Balseiro Institute, nearly 50 scientists left between 2023 and 2024. Those under 45 are the most likely to leave. Is there a risk of a new brain drain?

There's a new brain drain. It's already happening. Scientists are leaving the country. Some are leaving Conicet to join the private sector, which wouldn't be as serious. The worst part is that many are leaving for Europe or neighboring countries that pay better. The consequences are irreversible because it's very rare that, once they leave and settle abroad, they want to return. We did it once with the Raíces Plan, when we repatriated several scientists, but no one would take the risk twice.

Did science funding improve this year or did it decrease further?

I don't have good news. The allocation for the sector remains almost zero: 0.2% of the national budget, and it only goes to pay miserable salaries and maintain buildings. Everything else has come to a standstill. Despite the fact that science has a $50 million fund from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), it hasn't been spent for two years.

-Why do you think we got to this point?

-First, it was unclear who would sign the IDB disbursement in the 2023 transfer of power. Later, the formal aspects were resolved, but there was no political will. In fact, the Ministry was dismantled to the point of being demoted to the level of a Secretariat. Not only was there neglect, but there was a clear intention to deactivate the country's scientific and technological apparatus. The outlook is quite negative.

-Is there a change in the way we view science? It seems that all scientific evidence is now questionable.

Yes, absolutely. I think this is a global phenomenon. I was in the United States at a science convention in 2015, and the issue that concerned them was that American society viewed scientists as a special interest group. For example: if someone defends the vaccine, they're paid by the pharmaceutical industry. Even today, the US Secretary of Health denies the efficacy of vaccines. And that's very serious because everything carries equal weight. There's an atmosphere of irrationality and an attack on knowledge. Social media also contributes to this.

What is the Argentine scientific community doing in response to the lack of funding?

-Not much, and it makes me a little angry. When I, as Macri's minister, restricted admission to Conicet because a requirement for excellence had to be maintained and there were austerity measures, the workers took over the Ministry. Now there aren't even any admissions to scientific careers, there's no longer any funding, and no one is in sight. There's fear of repression, of social media harassment, and there's a certain apathy from the union, and that's serious.

-How do you see the role of the opposition in this regard?

The opposition's silence seems even more serious to me. There are sectors like the Radical Party, which has historically boasted of being the university movement from which scientific knowledge emerges, and it's also silent in the face of such underfunding. Perhaps for electoral convenience. And Peronism is preoccupied with other issues, it seems. It hasn't taken up the defense of this, even though Néstor and Cristina's administrations were the most supportive of science.

-You were also a minister under Mauricio Macri, and you were criticized during his administration for austerity measures. What's the difference with Milei's presidency?

- Under Macri, there was an adjustment in the area of ​​science, but it was smaller than in other areas. I should clarify that I had announced at the time that I would resign if the adjustment was too large. But the idea was to keep the "engine running" and fuel it for the future. Milei's vision of the country clearly lacks scientific knowledge. She throws it out the window because she finds it unnecessary. Her only goal is to cut everything to keep inflation low. There's no greater achievement than that.

-There's a prejudice that seems to suggest that anyone who defends science today is a Kirchnerist. Do you agree with that?

-The scientist isn't a Kirchnerist per se. It's not an ideological issue, but rather where he was most highly paid. Ultimately, he would be defending his status quo, and that's valid. Even a scientist who disagrees with the Ks accepts that at the time he had more money in his pocket and more funds for research. Society has also changed. Today, a scientist blocks the street and is insulted because everyone is wrong.

-Is there progress in the development of technology-based SMEs, beyond the lack of support from the state?

There are more than 450 startups in the country, and most are made up of professionals from Conicet (National Institute of Technology) and national universities. Private investment funds continue to fund research. In fact, I'm working as a consultant for many companies that receive financial support, but that's the fruit of the tree. Now, if you cut down the tree, there are only those companies.

-Is there any need for mea culpa on your part as a former national official?

Perhaps it took us a long time to achieve a cultural shift within the scientific community. For example: as a researcher, at one point you have too many resources from the state and you only have to publish one paper a year, and well... you're comfortable. Researchers gradually learned the ethical responsibility of having to give back knowledge to the society that funds them, beyond their teaching role. There was also a lack of better communication about what was being done.

-Is this the worst crisis Conicet has ever experienced? How do we get out of it?

There are more people at Conicet today than in the past, but they don't have the resources to do productive work. We must try to establish links with the productive sector. A lot of creativity is needed for SMEs to invest in science and also find markets to sell our technological products. In the private sector, there is a lot of uncertainty about investing, and universities must change their curricula. They are very behind. Argentina has enormous potential in the knowledge economy, and if the national government withdraws funding, the provinces will have no choice but to take on the responsibility of keeping this flame alive.