Show simple item record

dc.rights.licenseAtribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional
dc.contributor.advisorDaza Caicedo, Sandra
dc.contributor.advisorGómez Morales, Yuri Jack
dc.contributor.authorFranco Forero, Carlos David
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-23T13:51:04Z
dc.date.available2022-02-23T13:51:04Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/81043
dc.descriptionilustraciones, gráficas
dc.description.abstractComo resultado de una investigación universitaria fue identificado un producto químico al parecer novedoso que promete tener una aplicación en la industria y un impacto en el mercado. Para capitalizarlo, la Universidad decidió hacerse propietaria de dicho producto mediante una solicitud de patente que eventualmente se puede licenciar. Este canal que parece conectar al laboratorio con el mercado está enmarcado en un modelo de innovación que desconoce todo el trabajo, incertidumbre y particularidades que se ciernen en la movilización de un producto específico desde un espacio académico hacia un espacio comercial. En primer lugar, se presentan algunos elementos que emergen de los Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y la tecnología en relación con la propiedad intelectual, el ensamblaje de redes de interacción, los elementos que difuminan fronteras o se mueven a través de ellas y de la presencia del secreto en la circulación del conocimiento. En segundo lugar, se relata el seguimiento de un resultado de investigación universitaria patentado en el que se hacen visibles elementos contingentes como la negociación de una patente, las dificultades para avanzar en el estado de desarrollo y el uso de lo secreto. (Texto tomado de la fuente).
dc.description.abstractAs a result of a university investigation, an apparently novel chemical that promises to have an application in the industry and an impact on the market was identified. To capitalize on it, the University decided to become the owner of said product through a patent application that can eventually be licensed. This channel that seems to connect the laboratory with the market is framed in an innovation model that ignores all the work, uncertainty and particularities that loom in the mobilization of a specific product from an academic space to a commercial space. In the first place, some elements that emerge from the Social Studies of Science and technology are presented in relation to intellectual property, the assembly of interaction networks, the elements that blur borders or move through them and of presence of secrecy in the circulation of knowledge. Secondly, the follow-up of a patented university research result is told, in which contingent elements such as the negotiation of a patent, the difficulties to advance in the state of development and the use of secrecy become visible.
dc.format.extentxiii, 139 páginas
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isospa
dc.publisherUniversidad Nacional de Colombia
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.subject.ddc300 - Ciencias sociales
dc.titleTop Secret: propiedad intelectual y transformación de conocimiento para llevar un producto del laboratorio al mercado
dc.typeTrabajo de grado - Maestría
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.publisher.programBogotá - Ciencias Humanas - Maestría en Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia
dc.description.notesIncluye anexos
dc.contributor.researchgroupEstudios Sociales de la Ciencia, la Tecnología Y la Medicina
dc.description.degreelevelMaestría
dc.description.degreenameMagíster en Estudios Sociales de La Ciencia
dc.description.researchareaCiencia y política
dc.description.researchareaPolítica científica y tecnológica
dc.identifier.instnameUniversidad Nacional de Colombia
dc.identifier.reponameRepositorio Institucional Universidad Nacional de Colombia
dc.identifier.repourlhttps://repositorio.unal.edu.co/
dc.publisher.departmentDepartamento de Sociología
dc.publisher.facultyFacultad de Ciencias Humanas
dc.publisher.placeBogotá, Colombia
dc.publisher.branchUniversidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede Bogotá
dc.relation.referencesAkrich, M., Callon, M., & Latour, B. (2002). The Key To Success in Innovation Part I: the Art of interessement. International Journal of Innovation Management, 06(02), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1142/s1363919602000562
dc.relation.referencesAsdal, K., & Moser, I. (2012). Experiments in Context and Contexting. Science , Technology & Human Values, 37(4), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.2307/41511177
dc.relation.referencesBagchi, A. K., & Bhattacharya, U. K. (1995). Indian patents as competitive instruments: Dream and reality. Economic And Political Weekly, 30(25), 1501–1511. Recuperado de http://www.jstor.org/stable/4402913
dc.relation.referencesBazerman, C. (1997). Performatives constituting value: the case of patents. En The Construction of Professional Discourse (pp. 42–53).
dc.relation.referencesBiagioli, M. (2003). Rights or Rewards? Changing Frameworks of Scientific Authorship. Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science, (January 2000), 253–279.
dc.relation.referencesBiagioli, M. (2006). Patent republic: Representing inventions, constructing rights and authors. Social Research, 73(4), 1129–1172.
dc.relation.referencesBiddle, J. B. (2014). Can patents prohibit research? On the social epistemology of patenting and licensing in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 45(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.12.001
dc.relation.referencesBirch, K. (2017). Techno-economic Assumptions. Science as Culture, 26(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2017.1377389
dc.relation.referencesBorup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & Van Lente, H. (2006). The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3–4), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem.77.2.8345056
dc.relation.referencesBowker, G. (1991). El auge de la investigación industrial. Historia de las ciencias, 527–551.
dc.relation.referencesBowker, G. (1992). What’s in a Patent? En Shaping Technology/Building Society (pp. 53–74).
dc.relation.referencesBowker, G., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. En The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/3421475
dc.relation.referencesBozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/011719681001900104
dc.relation.referencesCallon, M. (1986a). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of Saint-Brieuc Bay. Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge?, 196–223. https://doi.org/10.22394/0869-5377-2017-2-49-90
dc.relation.referencesCallon, M. (1986b). The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle. En Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of science in the real world (pp. 19–34). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07408-2
dc.relation.referencesCallon, M. (1990). Techno-economic Networks and Irreversibility. The Sociological Review, 38(1_suppl), 132–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1990.tb03351.x
dc.relation.referencesCallon, M. (1998). Introduction: The Embeddedness of Economic Markets in Economics. The Sociological Review, 46(1_suppl), 1–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1998.tb03468.x
dc.relation.referencesCallon, M., & Bowker, G. (1994). Is Science a Public Good? Fifth Mullins Lecture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 23 March. Science, Technology and Human values, 19(4), 395–424. Recuperado de https://www.jstor.org/stable/689955
dc.relation.referencesCallon, M., & Law, J. (1982). On Interests and Their Transformation : Enrolment and Counter-Enrolment. Social Studies of Science, 12(4), 615–625.
dc.relation.referencesCallon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2011). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Inside Technology.
dc.relation.referencesCambrosio, A., Keating, P., & Mackenzie, M. (1990). Scientific Practice in the Courtroom : The Construction of Sociotechnical Identities in a Biotechnology Patent Dispute Published by : Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems Stable URL : https://www.jstor.org/stab. Social Problems, 37(3), 275–293.
dc.relation.referencesCervantes García, J. A. (2018). Hacer agua bebible : Microtecnologías y bebedores en la Ciudad Blanca. 114.
dc.relation.referencesChien, C. V. (2016). Contextualizing patent disclosure. Vanderbilt Law Review, 69(6), 1849–1890.
dc.relation.referencesClancy, M. S., & Moschini, G. (2017). Intellectual Property Rights and the Ascent of Proprietary Innovation in Agriculture. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 9(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053524
dc.relation.referencesCollins, H. (1985). Changing order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. En Sage Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7323-591c
dc.relation.referencesCollins, H. (2010). Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. En Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (Vol. 53). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
dc.relation.referencesCollins, H., & Yearly, S. (1992). Epistemological chicken. En Science as practice and culture (pp. 301–326).
dc.relation.referencesColyvas, J. a., & Powell, W. W. (2006). Roads to institutionalization: the remaking of boundaries between public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27, pp. 305–353.
dc.relation.referencesCristancho Escobar, F. A. (2017). La propiedad intelectual en los acuerdos adpic plus suscritos por Colombia: una visión desde la teoría económica de los derechos de propiedad. CES Derecho, 124–138. https://doi.org/10.21615/cesder.8.1.6
dc.relation.referencesCroissant, J. L. (2014). Agnotology: Ignorance and Absence or Towards a Sociology of Things That Aren’t There. Social Epistemology, 28(1), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2013.862880
dc.relation.referencesCroissant, J. L., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2008). Organizational contexts of science: Boundaries and relationships between university and industry. En The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 691–718).
dc.relation.referencesDe Laet, M. (2000). Patents, travel, space: Ethnographic encounters with objects in transit. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1068/d211t
dc.relation.referencesDe Laet, M., & Mol, A. (2000). The Zimbabwe bush pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology. Social Studies of Science, 30(2), 225–263. https://doi.org/10.22394/0869-5377-2017-1-171-228
dc.relation.referencesDíaz, Á. (2008). América Latina y el Caribe: La propiedad intelectual después de los tratados de libre comercio. En Cepal. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
dc.relation.referencesEdgerton, D. (1999). From innovation to use: Ten eclectic theses on the historiography of technology. History and Technology, 16, 111–136.
dc.relation.referencesEllis, C., & Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity: Researcher as Subject. Handbook of Qualitative Research, (28), 733–768.
dc.relation.referencesEtzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation : the Triple Helix of university - industry - government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026276308287
dc.relation.referencesEtzkowitz, H., & Webster, A. (1995). Science as intellectual property. En Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 480–505).
dc.relation.referencesEvans, J. A. (2010). Industry collaboration, scientific sharing, and the dissemination of knowledge. En Social Studies of Science (Vol. 40). https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710379931
dc.relation.referencesFrickel, S. (2014). Not Here and Everywhere:The non-production of scientific knowledge. En Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society (pp. 263–276).
dc.relation.referencesFujimura, J. H. (1992). Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and “translation.” BT - Science as practice and culture. Science as practice and culture, (6), 168–214.
dc.relation.referencesGibbons, M. (1994). Introduction. En The New Production of Knowledge: Dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies (pp. 1–16). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315669366-1
dc.relation.referencesGieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science : Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists Author ( s ): Thomas F . Gieryn Source : American Sociological Review , Vol . 48 , No . 6 ( Dec ., 1983 ), pp . 781-795 Publishe. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.
dc.relation.referencesGieryn, T. F. (1995). Boundaries of Science. En Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 393–443).
dc.relation.referencesGodin, Benoît. (2016). Technological innovation: On the origins and development of an inclusive concept. Technology and Culture, 57(3), 527–556. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2016.0070
dc.relation.referencesGodin, Benoit, & Vinck, D. (2017). Critical studies of innovation : alternative approaches to the pro-innovation bias. Edward Elgar.
dc.relation.referencesGómez-Morales, Y. J. (2007). science / non-science and boundary work. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, 4079–4082.
dc.relation.referencesGómez Uranga, M., López Gómez, M. del S., & Araujo de la Mata, A. (2008). Los ADPIC Plus en los actuales tratados bilaterales impulsados por Estados Unidos y consecuencias en los países en desarrollo. Revista de Economía Mundial, 20, 23–48.
dc.relation.referencesGonzález-Gélvez, D. M., & Jaime, A. (2013). El patentamiento Universitario en Colombia. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 8(SPL.ISS.3), 233–345. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27242013000300050
dc.relation.referencesGraeber, D. (2017). Trabajos de mierda, una teoría. https://doi.org/10.15446/mag.v33n1.82995
dc.relation.referencesGuston, D. H. (1999). Stabilizing the Boundary between US Politics and Science: The role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a Boundary Organization. Social Studies of Science, 29(1), 87–111.
dc.relation.referencesHall, B. H., & Harhoff, D. (2012). Recent Research on the Economics of Patents. Annual Review of Economics, 4(1), 541–565. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080511-111008
dc.relation.referencesHarper, R. (1998). Inside the IMF: An Etnography of Documents, Technology and Organisational Action.
dc.relation.referencesHéder, M. (2017). From NASA to EU: The evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation. Innovation Journal, 22(2), 1–23.
dc.relation.referencesHeimer, C. A. (2012). Inert facts and the illusion of knowledge: Strategic uses of ignorance in HIV clinics. Economy and Society, 41(1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2011.637332
dc.relation.referencesHeller, M. A., Eisenberg, R. S., Science, S., Series, N., May, N., Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can Patents Deter Innovation ? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science, 280(5364), 698–701. Recuperado de http://www.jstor.org/stable/2895332
dc.relation.referencesHirsch, E. (2010). Property and persons: New forms and contests in the Era of Neoliberalism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105036
dc.relation.referencesJacobsson, B. (2000). Standardization and expert knowledge. En A World of Standards (p. 40.49).
dc.relation.referencesJensen, R. A. (2016). University–Industry Linkages in the Support of Biotechnology Discoveries. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 8(1), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095400
dc.relation.referencesKang, H. Y. (2019). Patents as Assets: Intellectual Property Rights as Market Subjects and Objects. En Turning Things into Assets: New Lineaments in the Study of Technoscientific Capitalism (pp. 1–33).
dc.relation.referencesKleinman, D. L. (1998). Untangling Context : Understanding a University Laboratory in the Commercial World. Science, Technology and Human Values, 23(3), 285–314.
dc.relation.referencesLatour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to follow scientists.
dc.relation.referencesLatour, B. (1999). La esperanza de Pandora: los estudios de la ciencia. En Science Studies. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
dc.relation.referencesLatour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). La vida en el laboratorio. En Alianza Editorial.
dc.relation.referencesLave, R., Mirowski, P., & Randalls, S. (2010). Introduction: STS and Neoliberal science. Social Studies of Science, 40(5), 659–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710378549
dc.relation.referencesLaw, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. En After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203481141
dc.relation.referencesLaw, J. (2010). The Materials of STS. (April 2009).
dc.relation.referencesLaw, J., & Lien, M. E. (2013). Slippery: Field notes in empirical ontology. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712456947
dc.relation.referencesLizarazo-Cortés, Ó., & Lamprea Bermúdez, N. (2014). Implementación del procedimiento acelerado de patentes (PPH) en Colombia. Análisis jurídico, técnico y efectos iniciales. Revista La Propiedad Inmaterial, 0(18), 281–321.
dc.relation.referencesLynch, M., & Jordan, K. (2000). Patents, Promotions, and Protocols: Mapping and Claiming Scientific Territory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 124–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2000.9677651
dc.relation.referencesLynch, M., & Rabinow, P. (1997). Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology. En The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (Vol. 3). https://doi.org/10.2307/3034054
dc.relation.referencesMol, A. (1999). Ontological politics. A word and some questions (pp. 74–89). pp. 74–89.
dc.relation.referencesMol, A. (2002). The Body Multiple. Ontology in Medical Practice. En Science and Cultural Theory. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
dc.relation.referencesMoser, P. (2016). Patents and Innovation in Economic History. Annual Review of Economics, 8(1), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080315-015136
dc.relation.referencesMurray, F. (2002). Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: Exploring tissue engineering. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1389–1403. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00070-7
dc.relation.referencesMyers, G. (1995). From Discovery to Invention : The Writing and Rewriting of Two Patents. Social Studies of Science, 25(1), 57–105.
dc.relation.referencesMyers, G. (1996). Strategic vagueness in academic writing. En Academic Writing: Intercultural and textual issues (p. 14).
dc.relation.referencesNagaoka, S., Motohashi, K., & Goto, A. (2010). Patent statistics as an innovation indicator. En Handbook of the Economics of Innovation (Vol. 2, pp. 1083–1127). North-Holland.
dc.relation.referencesNowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). ‘Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194.
dc.relation.referencesPacker, K., & Webster, A. (1995). Inventing Boundaries : The Prior Art of the Social World. Social Studies of Science, 25(1), 107–117.
dc.relation.referencesPacker, K., & Webster, A. (1996). Patenting Culture in Science : Reinventing the Scientific Wheel of Credibility. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(4), 427–453.
dc.relation.referencesPfotenhauer, S. M., & Juhl, J. (2017). Innovation and the political state: beyond the myth of technologies and markets. En Benoit Godin & D. Vinck (Eds.), Critical Studies of Innovation: Alternative Approaches to the Pro-Innovation Bias (pp. 68–93). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367229
dc.relation.referencesPolanyi, M. (1966). The tacit Dimension (2009 by Am). Chicago: University of Chicaco Press.
dc.relation.referencesPopp Berman, E. (2008). Why did universities start patenting?: Institution-building and the road to the bayh-dole act. Social Studies of Science, 38(6), 835–871. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312708098605
dc.relation.referencesPrasad, A. (2007). The (Amorphous) anatomy of an invention: The case of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Social Studies of Science, 37(4), 533–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706075334
dc.relation.referencesPrior, L. (2004). Documents. En Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 345–360).
dc.relation.referencesProctor, R. (2008). Agnotology: A Missing Term to Describe the Cultural Production of Ignorance (and Its Study). En The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance (pp. 1–36). https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839404263
dc.relation.referencesRaigoso Camelo, C. E. (2018). En las Fronteras del Glifosato: Asociaciones en juego y el juego de las asociaciones. Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
dc.relation.referencesRappert, B., & Balmer, B. (2007). Rethinking ‘Secrecy’ and ‘Disclosure’: What Science and Technology Studies Can Offer Attempts to Govern WMD Threats. En Technology and Security: Governing Threats in the New Millennium (pp. 45–65).
dc.relation.referencesRappert, B., & Webster, A. (1997). Regimes of ordering: The commercialization of intellectual property in industrial-academic collaborations. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 9(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329708524274
dc.relation.referencesRenault, C. S. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-6108-x
dc.relation.referencesRestrepo Forero, O. (2004). Retórica de la ciencia sin “retórica” Sobre autores, comunidades y contextos. Revista Colombiana de Sociología, 23(23), 251–268.
dc.relation.referencesRiles, A. (2010). Collateral expertise legal knowledge in the global financial markets. Current Anthropology, 51(6), 795–818. https://doi.org/10.1086/657627
dc.relation.referencesRip, A. (1986). Mobilising Resources Through Texts. En Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of science in the real world (pp. 84–99).
dc.relation.referencesRodríguez, M. C., & Mantilla, W. P. (2013). De la creatividad a la innovación, de la innovación a la propiedad intelectual. Revista de la propiedad inmaterial, 17, 283–324.
dc.relation.referencesShapin, S. (1984). Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s Literary Technology. Social Studies of Science, 14(4), 481–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631284014004001
dc.relation.referencesShapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. En Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1086/354315
dc.relation.referencesSmith, D. (2005). Institutional ethnography: a sociology for people. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
dc.relation.referencesStar, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science Technology and Human Values, 35(5), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624
dc.relation.referencesStar, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology , ’ Translations ’ and Boundary Objects : Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley ’ s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology , 1907-39 Author ( s ): Susan Leigh Star and James R . Griesemer Source : Social Studies of Science , Vol . 19 , No . 3. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
dc.relation.referencesSuchman, L. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations.
dc.relation.referencesTrompette, P., & Vinck, D. (2009). REGRESO SOBRE LA NOCIÓN DE OBJETO FRONTERA. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 3(1), 4–26.
dc.relation.referencesTurner, S. (2001). What is the problem with experts? Social Studies of Science, 31(1), 123–149.
dc.relation.referencesVan Lente, H., & Rip, A. (s/f). CHAPTER VII Expectations in technological developments: An example of prospective structures to be filled in by agency. 1–25.
dc.relation.referencesWirtén, E. H. (2015). The Patent and the paper: A few thoughts on late modern science and intellectual property. Culture Unbound, 7(4), 600–609. https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.1573600
dc.relation.referencesWoodmansee, M., & Jaszi, P. (2003). Beyond Authorship Refiguring Rights in Traditional Culture and Bioknowledge. En Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science.
dc.relation.referencesWoolgar, S., & Lezaun, J. (2013). The wrong bin bag: A turn to ontology in science and technology studies? Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 321–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713488820
dc.relation.referencesZukerfeld, M. (2011). Las regulaciones del acceso a los conocimientos en el período preindustrial. Introducción a una sociología histórica de la propiedad intelectual. Redes, 17(32), 17–37.
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject.proposalPropiedad intelectual
dc.subject.proposalPatentes
dc.subject.proposalConocimiento
dc.subject.proposalSecretos
dc.subject.proposalInteresamiento
dc.subject.proposalOntología
dc.subject.proposalIntellectual property
dc.subject.proposalPatents
dc.subject.proposalKnowledge
dc.subject.proposalSecrets
dc.subject.proposalInteressement
dc.subject.proposalOntology
dc.subject.proposalTransferencia de tecnología
dc.subject.proposalTechnology transfer
dc.subject.unescoPropiedad intelectual
dc.subject.unescoIntellectual property
dc.subject.unescoMarketing
dc.subject.unescoMarketing
dc.subject.unescoSociología del conocimiento
dc.subject.unescoSociology of knowledge
dc.title.translatedTop Secret: intellectual property and knowledge transformation to bring a product from the laboratory to the market
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_bdcc
dc.type.coarversionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_ab4af688f83e57aa
dc.type.contentText
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/TM
oaire.accessrightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dcterms.audience.professionaldevelopmentPúblico general


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 InternacionalThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0.This document has been deposited by the author (s) under the following certificate of deposit