Top Secret: propiedad intelectual y transformación de conocimiento para llevar un producto del laboratorio al mercado

ilustraciones, gráficas

Autores:: Franco Forero, Carlos David

Tipo de recurso:

Fecha de publicación:: 2021

Institución:: Universidad Nacional de Colombia

Repositorio:: Universidad Nacional de Colombia

Idioma:: spa

id	UNACIONAL2_f9251dd7daf8fd7f640009b4874cd094
oai_identifier_str	oai:repositorio.unal.edu.co:unal/81043
network_acronym_str	UNACIONAL2
network_name_str	Universidad Nacional de Colombia
repository_id_str
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv	Top Secret: propiedad intelectual y transformación de conocimiento para llevar un producto del laboratorio al mercado
dc.title.translated.eng.fl_str_mv	Top Secret: intellectual property and knowledge transformation to bring a product from the laboratory to the market
title	Top Secret: propiedad intelectual y transformación de conocimiento para llevar un producto del laboratorio al mercado
spellingShingle	Top Secret: propiedad intelectual y transformación de conocimiento para llevar un producto del laboratorio al mercado 300 - Ciencias sociales Propiedad intelectual Patentes Conocimiento Secretos Interesamiento Ontología Transferencia de tecnología Intellectual property Patents Knowledge Secrets Interessement Ontology Technology transfer Propiedad intelectual Marketing Sociología del conocimiento Intellectual property Marketing Sociology of knowledge
title_short	Top Secret: propiedad intelectual y transformación de conocimiento para llevar un producto del laboratorio al mercado
title_full	Top Secret: propiedad intelectual y transformación de conocimiento para llevar un producto del laboratorio al mercado
title_fullStr	Top Secret: propiedad intelectual y transformación de conocimiento para llevar un producto del laboratorio al mercado
title_full_unstemmed	Top Secret: propiedad intelectual y transformación de conocimiento para llevar un producto del laboratorio al mercado
title_sort	Top Secret: propiedad intelectual y transformación de conocimiento para llevar un producto del laboratorio al mercado
dc.creator.fl_str_mv	Franco Forero, Carlos David
dc.contributor.advisor.spa.fl_str_mv	Daza Caicedo, Sandra Gómez Morales, Yuri Jack
dc.contributor.author.spa.fl_str_mv	Franco Forero, Carlos David
dc.contributor.researchgroup.spa.fl_str_mv	Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia, la Tecnología Y la Medicina
dc.subject.ddc.spa.fl_str_mv	300 - Ciencias sociales
topic	300 - Ciencias sociales Propiedad intelectual Patentes Conocimiento Secretos Interesamiento Ontología Transferencia de tecnología Intellectual property Patents Knowledge Secrets Interessement Ontology Technology transfer Propiedad intelectual Marketing Sociología del conocimiento Intellectual property Marketing Sociology of knowledge
dc.subject.proposal.spa.fl_str_mv	Propiedad intelectual Patentes Conocimiento Secretos Interesamiento Ontología Transferencia de tecnología
dc.subject.proposal.eng.fl_str_mv	Intellectual property Patents Knowledge Secrets Interessement Ontology Technology transfer
dc.subject.unesco.spa.fl_str_mv	Propiedad intelectual Marketing Sociología del conocimiento
dc.subject.unesco.eng.fl_str_mv	Intellectual property Marketing Sociology of knowledge
description	ilustraciones, gráficas
publishDate	2021
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv	2021
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv	2022-02-23T13:51:04Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv	2022-02-23T13:51:04Z
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv	Trabajo de grado - Maestría
dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv	Text
dc.type.redcol.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/TM
status_str	acceptedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv	https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/81043
dc.identifier.instname.spa.fl_str_mv	Universidad Nacional de Colombia
dc.identifier.reponame.spa.fl_str_mv	Repositorio Institucional Universidad Nacional de Colombia
dc.identifier.repourl.spa.fl_str_mv	https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/
url	https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/81043 https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/
identifier_str_mv	Universidad Nacional de Colombia Repositorio Institucional Universidad Nacional de Colombia
dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv	spa
language	spa
dc.relation.references.spa.fl_str_mv	Akrich, 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 Asdal, K., & Moser, I. (2012). Experiments in Context and Contexting. Science , Technology & Human Values, 37(4), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.2307/41511177 Bagchi, 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 Bazerman, C. (1997). Performatives constituting value: the case of patents. En The Construction of Professional Discourse (pp. 42–53). Biagioli, M. (2003). Rights or Rewards? Changing Frameworks of Scientific Authorship. Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science, (January 2000), 253–279. Biagioli, M. (2006). Patent republic: Representing inventions, constructing rights and authors. Social Research, 73(4), 1129–1172. Biddle, 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 Birch, K. (2017). Techno-economic Assumptions. Science as Culture, 26(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2017.1377389 Borup, 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 Bowker, G. (1991). El auge de la investigación industrial. Historia de las ciencias, 527–551. Bowker, G. (1992). What’s in a Patent? En Shaping Technology/Building Society (pp. 53–74). Bowker, G., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. En The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/3421475 Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/011719681001900104 Callon, 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 Callon, 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 Callon, 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 Callon, 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 Callon, 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 Callon, M., & Law, J. (1982). On Interests and Their Transformation : Enrolment and Counter-Enrolment. Social Studies of Science, 12(4), 615–625. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2011). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Inside Technology. Cambrosio, 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. Cervantes García, J. A. (2018). Hacer agua bebible : Microtecnologías y bebedores en la Ciudad Blanca. 114. Chien, C. V. (2016). Contextualizing patent disclosure. Vanderbilt Law Review, 69(6), 1849–1890. Clancy, 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 Collins, H. (1985). Changing order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. En Sage Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7323-591c Collins, H. (2010). Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. En Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (Vol. 53). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Collins, H., & Yearly, S. (1992). Epistemological chicken. En Science as practice and culture (pp. 301–326). Colyvas, 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. Cristancho 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 Croissant, 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 Croissant, 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). De 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 De 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 Díaz, 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 Edgerton, D. (1999). From innovation to use: Ten eclectic theses on the historiography of technology. History and Technology, 16, 111–136. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity: Researcher as Subject. Handbook of Qualitative Research, (28), 733–768. Etzkowitz, 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 Etzkowitz, H., & Webster, A. (1995). Science as intellectual property. En Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 480–505). Evans, 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 Frickel, S. (2014). Not Here and Everywhere:The non-production of scientific knowledge. En Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society (pp. 263–276). Fujimura, 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. Gibbons, 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 Gieryn, 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. Gieryn, T. F. (1995). Boundaries of Science. En Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 393–443). Godin, 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 Godin, Benoit, & Vinck, D. (2017). Critical studies of innovation : alternative approaches to the pro-innovation bias. Edward Elgar. Gómez-Morales, Y. J. (2007). science / non-science and boundary work. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, 4079–4082. Gómez 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. González-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 Graeber, D. (2017). Trabajos de mierda, una teoría. https://doi.org/10.15446/mag.v33n1.82995 Guston, 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. Hall, 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 Harper, R. (1998). Inside the IMF: An Etnography of Documents, Technology and Organisational Action. Héder, M. (2017). From NASA to EU: The evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation. Innovation Journal, 22(2), 1–23. Heimer, 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 Heller, 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 Hirsch, 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 Jacobsson, B. (2000). Standardization and expert knowledge. En A World of Standards (p. 40.49). Jensen, 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 Kang, 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). Kleinman, D. L. (1998). Untangling Context : Understanding a University Laboratory in the Commercial World. Science, Technology and Human Values, 23(3), 285–314. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to follow scientists. Latour, B. (1999). La esperanza de Pandora: los estudios de la ciencia. En Science Studies. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). La vida en el laboratorio. En Alianza Editorial. Lave, 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 Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. En After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203481141 Law, J. (2010). The Materials of STS. (April 2009). Law, 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 Lizarazo-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. Lynch, 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 Lynch, 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 Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics. A word and some questions (pp. 74–89). pp. 74–89. Mol, A. (2002). The Body Multiple. Ontology in Medical Practice. En Science and Cultural Theory. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Moser, 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 Murray, 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 Myers, G. (1995). From Discovery to Invention : The Writing and Rewriting of Two Patents. Social Studies of Science, 25(1), 57–105. Myers, G. (1996). Strategic vagueness in academic writing. En Academic Writing: Intercultural and textual issues (p. 14). Nagaoka, 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. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). ‘Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194. Packer, K., & Webster, A. (1995). Inventing Boundaries : The Prior Art of the Social World. Social Studies of Science, 25(1), 107–117. Packer, K., & Webster, A. (1996). Patenting Culture in Science : Reinventing the Scientific Wheel of Credibility. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(4), 427–453. Pfotenhauer, 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 Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit Dimension (2009 by Am). Chicago: University of Chicaco Press. Popp 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 Prasad, 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 Prior, L. (2004). Documents. En Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 345–360). Proctor, 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 Raigoso Camelo, C. E. (2018). En las Fronteras del Glifosato: Asociaciones en juego y el juego de las asociaciones. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Rappert, 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). Rappert, 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 Renault, 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 Restrepo Forero, O. (2004). Retórica de la ciencia sin “retórica” Sobre autores, comunidades y contextos. Revista Colombiana de Sociología, 23(23), 251–268. Riles, A. (2010). Collateral expertise legal knowledge in the global financial markets. Current Anthropology, 51(6), 795–818. https://doi.org/10.1086/657627 Rip, A. (1986). Mobilising Resources Through Texts. En Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of science in the real world (pp. 84–99). Rodríguez, 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. Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s Literary Technology. Social Studies of Science, 14(4), 481–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631284014004001 Shapin, 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 Smith, D. (2005). Institutional ethnography: a sociology for people. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Star, 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 Star, 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. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations. Trompette, P., & Vinck, D. (2009). REGRESO SOBRE LA NOCIÓN DE OBJETO FRONTERA. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 3(1), 4–26. Turner, S. (2001). What is the problem with experts? Social Studies of Science, 31(1), 123–149. Van 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. Wirtén, 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 Woodmansee, M., & Jaszi, P. (2003). Beyond Authorship Refiguring Rights in Traditional Culture and Bioknowledge. En Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science. Woolgar, 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 Zukerfeld, 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.coar.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.license.spa.fl_str_mv	Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional
dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv	Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
eu_rights_str_mv	openAccess
dc.format.extent.spa.fl_str_mv	xiii, 139 páginas
dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv	application/pdf
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv	Universidad Nacional de Colombia
dc.publisher.program.spa.fl_str_mv	Bogotá - Ciencias Humanas - Maestría en Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia
dc.publisher.department.spa.fl_str_mv	Departamento de Sociología
dc.publisher.faculty.spa.fl_str_mv	Facultad de Ciencias Humanas
dc.publisher.place.spa.fl_str_mv	Bogotá, Colombia
dc.publisher.branch.spa.fl_str_mv	Universidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede Bogotá
institution	Universidad Nacional de Colombia
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv	https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/unal/81043/3/80074410.2021.pdf https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/unal/81043/4/license.txt https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/unal/81043/5/80074410.2021.pdf.jpg
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv	902de6cc9c7db8ad1d71bd127b1d0d23 8153f7789df02f0a4c9e079953658ab2 1810bf61401c0aa4048351253dbbe582
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv	MD5 MD5 MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv	Repositorio Institucional Universidad Nacional de Colombia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv	repositorio_nal@unal.edu.co
_version_	1814089815269834752
spelling	Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacionalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Daza Caicedo, Sandra12aef0ecdb8269c207b721ab83c75234600Gómez Morales, Yuri Jack243308bf0cd70555f2c5861b827ff581600Franco Forero, Carlos Davidd3ad6dfd26bffdc0a91fca064cf26902Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia, la Tecnología Y la Medicina2022-02-23T13:51:04Z2022-02-23T13:51:04Z2021https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/81043Universidad Nacional de ColombiaRepositorio Institucional Universidad Nacional de Colombiahttps://repositorio.unal.edu.co/ilustraciones, gráficasComo 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).As 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.Incluye anexosMaestríaMagíster en Estudios Sociales de La CienciaCiencia y políticaPolítica científica y tecnológicaxiii, 139 páginasapplication/pdfspaUniversidad Nacional de ColombiaBogotá - Ciencias Humanas - Maestría en Estudios Sociales de la CienciaDepartamento de SociologíaFacultad de Ciencias HumanasBogotá, ColombiaUniversidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede Bogotá300 - Ciencias socialesPropiedad intelectualPatentesConocimientoSecretosInteresamientoOntologíaTransferencia de tecnologíaIntellectual propertyPatentsKnowledgeSecretsInteressementOntologyTechnology transferPropiedad intelectualMarketingSociología del conocimientoIntellectual propertyMarketingSociology of knowledgeTop Secret: propiedad intelectual y transformación de conocimiento para llevar un producto del laboratorio al mercadoTop Secret: intellectual property and knowledge transformation to bring a product from the laboratory to the marketTrabajo de grado - Maestríainfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionTexthttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/TMAkrich, 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/s1363919602000562Asdal, K., & Moser, I. (2012). Experiments in Context and Contexting. Science , Technology & Human Values, 37(4), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.2307/41511177Bagchi, 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/4402913Bazerman, C. (1997). Performatives constituting value: the case of patents. En The Construction of Professional Discourse (pp. 42–53).Biagioli, M. (2003). Rights or Rewards? Changing Frameworks of Scientific Authorship. Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science, (January 2000), 253–279.Biagioli, M. (2006). Patent republic: Representing inventions, constructing rights and authors. Social Research, 73(4), 1129–1172.Biddle, 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.2013.12.001Birch, K. (2017). Techno-economic Assumptions. Science as Culture, 26(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2017.1377389Borup, 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.77.2.8345056Bowker, G. (1991). El auge de la investigación industrial. Historia de las ciencias, 527–551.Bowker, G. (1992). What’s in a Patent? En Shaping Technology/Building Society (pp. 53–74).Bowker, G., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. En The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/3421475Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/011719681001900104Callon, 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/10.22394/0869-5377-2017-2-49-90Callon, 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/10.1007/978-1-349-07408-2Callon, 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.xCallon, 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.xCallon, 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/689955Callon, M., & Law, J. (1982). On Interests and Their Transformation : Enrolment and Counter-Enrolment. Social Studies of Science, 12(4), 615–625.Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2011). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Inside Technology.Cambrosio, 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.Cervantes García, J. A. (2018). Hacer agua bebible : Microtecnologías y bebedores en la Ciudad Blanca. 114.Chien, C. V. (2016). Contextualizing patent disclosure. Vanderbilt Law Review, 69(6), 1849–1890.Clancy, 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-100516-053524Collins, H. (1985). Changing order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. En Sage Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7323-591cCollins, H. (2010). Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. En Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (Vol. 53). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004Collins, H., & Yearly, S. (1992). Epistemological chicken. En Science as practice and culture (pp. 301–326).Colyvas, 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.Cristancho 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.8.1.6Croissant, 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/10.1080/02691728.2013.862880Croissant, 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).De 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/d211tDe 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/10.22394/0869-5377-2017-1-171-228Díaz, Á. (2008). América Latina y el Caribe: La propiedad intelectual después de los tratados de libre comercio. En Cepal. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004Edgerton, D. (1999). From innovation to use: Ten eclectic theses on the historiography of technology. History and Technology, 16, 111–136.Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity: Researcher as Subject. Handbook of Qualitative Research, (28), 733–768.Etzkowitz, 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:1026276308287Etzkowitz, H., & Webster, A. (1995). Science as intellectual property. En Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 480–505).Evans, J. A. (2010). Industry collaboration, scientific sharing, and the dissemination of knowledge. En Social Studies of Science (Vol. 40). https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710379931Frickel, S. (2014). Not Here and Everywhere:The non-production of scientific knowledge. En Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society (pp. 263–276).Fujimura, 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.Gibbons, M. (1994). Introduction. En The New Production of Knowledge: Dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies (pp. 1–16). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315669366-1Gieryn, 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.Gieryn, T. F. (1995). Boundaries of Science. En Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 393–443).Godin, 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.2016.0070Godin, Benoit, & Vinck, D. (2017). Critical studies of innovation : alternative approaches to the pro-innovation bias. Edward Elgar.Gómez-Morales, Y. J. (2007). science / non-science and boundary work. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, 4079–4082.Gómez 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.González-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/s0718-27242013000300050Graeber, D. (2017). Trabajos de mierda, una teoría. https://doi.org/10.15446/mag.v33n1.82995Guston, 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.Hall, 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-080511-111008Harper, R. (1998). Inside the IMF: An Etnography of Documents, Technology and Organisational Action.Héder, M. (2017). From NASA to EU: The evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation. Innovation Journal, 22(2), 1–23.Heimer, 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/10.1080/03085147.2011.637332Heller, 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/2895332Hirsch, 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.012809.105036Jacobsson, B. (2000). Standardization and expert knowledge. En A World of Standards (p. 40.49).Jensen, 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-100815-095400Kang, 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).Kleinman, D. L. (1998). Untangling Context : Understanding a University Laboratory in the Commercial World. Science, Technology and Human Values, 23(3), 285–314.Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to follow scientists.Latour, B. (1999). La esperanza de Pandora: los estudios de la ciencia. En Science Studies. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). La vida en el laboratorio. En Alianza Editorial.Lave, R., Mirowski, P., & Randalls, S. (2010). Introduction: STS and Neoliberal science. Social Studies of Science, 40(5), 659–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710378549Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. En After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203481141Law, J. (2010). The Materials of STS. (April 2009).Law, J., & Lien, M. E. (2013). Slippery: Field notes in empirical ontology. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712456947Lizarazo-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.Lynch, 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/10.1080/10749039.2000.9677651Lynch, M., & Rabinow, P. (1997). Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology. En The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (Vol. 3). https://doi.org/10.2307/3034054Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics. A word and some questions (pp. 74–89). pp. 74–89.Mol, A. (2002). The Body Multiple. Ontology in Medical Practice. En Science and Cultural Theory. Durham and London: Duke University Press.Moser, P. (2016). Patents and Innovation in Economic History. Annual Review of Economics, 8(1), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080315-015136Murray, 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)00070-7Myers, G. (1995). From Discovery to Invention : The Writing and Rewriting of Two Patents. Social Studies of Science, 25(1), 57–105.Myers, G. (1996). Strategic vagueness in academic writing. En Academic Writing: Intercultural and textual issues (p. 14).Nagaoka, 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.Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). ‘Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194.Packer, K., & Webster, A. (1995). Inventing Boundaries : The Prior Art of the Social World. Social Studies of Science, 25(1), 107–117.Packer, K., & Webster, A. (1996). Patenting Culture in Science : Reinventing the Scientific Wheel of Credibility. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(4), 427–453.Pfotenhauer, 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/10.4337/9781785367229Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit Dimension (2009 by Am). Chicago: University of Chicaco Press.Popp 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/10.1177/0306312708098605Prasad, 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/10.1177/0306312706075334Prior, L. (2004). Documents. En Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 345–360).Proctor, 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/10.14361/9783839404263Raigoso Camelo, C. E. (2018). En las Fronteras del Glifosato: Asociaciones en juego y el juego de las asociaciones. Universidad Nacional de Colombia.Rappert, 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).Rappert, 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/10.1080/09537329708524274Renault, 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-xRestrepo Forero, O. (2004). Retórica de la ciencia sin “retórica” Sobre autores, comunidades y contextos. Revista Colombiana de Sociología, 23(23), 251–268.Riles, A. (2010). Collateral expertise legal knowledge in the global financial markets. Current Anthropology, 51(6), 795–818. https://doi.org/10.1086/657627Rip, A. (1986). Mobilising Resources Through Texts. En Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of science in the real world (pp. 84–99).Rodríguez, 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.Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s Literary Technology. Social Studies of Science, 14(4), 481–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631284014004001Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. En Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1086/354315Smith, D. (2005). Institutional ethnography: a sociology for people. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004Star, 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/10.1177/0162243910377624Star, 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.Suchman, L. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations.Trompette, P., & Vinck, D. (2009). REGRESO SOBRE LA NOCIÓN DE OBJETO FRONTERA. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 3(1), 4–26.Turner, S. (2001). What is the problem with experts? Social Studies of Science, 31(1), 123–149.Van 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.Wirtén, 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.2000.1525.1573600Woodmansee, M., & Jaszi, P. (2003). Beyond Authorship Refiguring Rights in Traditional Culture and Bioknowledge. En Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science.Woolgar, 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/10.1177/0306312713488820Zukerfeld, 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.Público generalORIGINAL80074410.2021.pdf80074410.2021.pdfTesis de Maestría en Estudios Sociales de la Cienciaapplication/pdf1887102https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/unal/81043/3/80074410.2021.pdf902de6cc9c7db8ad1d71bd127b1d0d23MD53LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-84074https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/unal/81043/4/license.txt8153f7789df02f0a4c9e079953658ab2MD54THUMBNAIL80074410.2021.pdf.jpg80074410.2021.pdf.jpgGenerated Thumbnailimage/jpeg5422https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/unal/81043/5/80074410.2021.pdf.jpg1810bf61401c0aa4048351253dbbe582MD55unal/81043oai:repositorio.unal.edu.co:unal/810432024-08-03 23:10:25.314Repositorio Institucional Universidad Nacional de Colombiarepositorio_nal@unal.edu.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

Top Secret: propiedad intelectual y transformación de conocimiento para llevar un producto del laboratorio al mercado

Publicaciones similares