My guess (I have no experience in the biotech industry) is that this is largely because you can't run an hour-long experiment with the candidate to test their competence. They must rely on a conversational technique. I don't know how much we can compare software with other industries.
The software industry is unique (or so we think) in that we can directly test a candidate to judge their competency in an hour, either by white-boarding or going over a take-home problem (or similar).
I think you could dream up some one-hour tasks if you really wanted to. The issue is that they'd be so obviously unrelated to overall job performance that the process would be self-evidently silly.
I'd argue that software is similar: projects don't falter because it takes someone five extra minutes to run a gel (or implement a red-black tree); they fall apart because people don't think about whether they ought to be doing that at all.
The most effective hiring process I've been through is one where there was basically no interview, I was given contract work to perform during which I was compensated for necessary company tasks with no real expectation of enduring relationship. After a few days of performing tasks to the satisfaction of the company, I was offered a permanent position.
Not only did this process eliminate the BS, it allowed me to perform a task in a relatively low-pressure but high yield setting while simultaneously not exploiting me (I got paid) and allowed the employer to see how I would actually behave as an employee. This is also the longest and most successful position I've held, partially because there is no lingering bitterness and hatefulness I've harbored at those expecting me to solve bullshit problems for free, like some kind of performing monkey.
The software industry is unique (or so we think) in that we can directly test a candidate to judge their competency in an hour, either by white-boarding or going over a take-home problem (or similar).