184
Received January 1, 2012 / Accepted June 16, 2012 J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2
Blind Technology Transfer or Technological Knowledge Leakage: a Case
Study from the South
Darío Gabriel Codner1, Paulina Becerra2, Alberto Díaz3
Abstract
Blurring boundaries between science and technology is a new phenomenon especially in elds such as biotechnology. The
present work shows the fate of biotech research papers on foreign patents produced during the last decade in Quilmes
National University. It aims at recognizing the ow of scientic knowledge developed at a public university towards foreign
companies and organizations as well as reecting on its technological value, the role of technology transfer management,
the institutional signicance of technology transfer processes and the need to develop innovative public policies for solving
structural failures caused by industrial underdevelopment.
Keywords: patents; technological transfer; citation analysis; university policies; scientic research
1Subsecretario de Investigación y Trasnferencia, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. Roque Saenz Peña 352 Bernal - Provincia de Buenos
Aires (B1876BXD) . Argentina. Tel/fax: 54 11 4365-7100 ext. 4181. E mail: dcodner@unq.edu.ar
2Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Intendente Güiraldes 2160. Pabellón III Ciudad
Universitaria (C1428EGA) – Buenos Aires. República Argentina. Tel: 54 11 4789–6200 E mail: pbecerra@fadu.uba.ar
3Director del Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo en Biotecnología Industrial. INTI. Av Gral. Paz 5445- Edico 51 – Casilla de Correo
157- (B1650WAB) San Martín Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina Tel.: 54 11 47246448. E mail: adiaz@inti.gob.ar
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios.

185
Introduction
The last years have been characterized by an accelerated
transforming process of the cultural, economic, political and
social dimensions of society. This brought about a series of
radical changes in production methods which gave rise to
the knowledge society4 where knowledge itself becomes the
main factor for explaining economic growth along with capi-
tal and labor. In this sense, major relevance is given to the
production of knowledge-intensive goods and services. This
scenery results from a completely new way of generating
knowledge where expectations for applying research results
and development become part of the faculty agenda (Gib-
bons, 1997). This determines a new pattern in the search for
practical results, complex problems solved through interdis-
ciplinary work and the adoption of new ways of organizing
through a high diversity of actors.
In economic terms, innovation becomes the main activity
and its sources fade while organizations recongure them-
selves in search for it as a mechanism to develop their
competitiveness (David and Foray, 2002). This transforma-
tion emerges from leaving aside the conception of innova-
tion as a context-independent individual decision process,
in favor of a conception with actors embedded in differ-
ent institutional networks (Nelson & Winter, 1982; Nelson,
1993, 1995; Lundvall, 1985; David & Foray, 2002; Teubal, 1996;
Freeman,1982, 1987; among others). The efforts to discover
and understand association phenomena between scientic-
technological capabilities and innovation processes with
agents who behave according to market and state incentives
have fostered the conceptualization of the National Innova-
tion System (NIS) as a paradigm for designing public policies
for science, technology and innovation. Additionally, the sys-
temic conceptualization of Sabato Triangle (Sábato & Botana,
1970) and Triple Helix (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1996) em-
phasizes the importance of interactions among universities,
companies and the government in order to achieve system
stability and virtuosity, in accordance to new complex mod-
els which explain the innovative process (Kline-Rosenberg,
1986). Nowadays there is a strong tendency to link innova-
tion with manufacturing, specially in biomanufacturing (E. B.
Reynolds: Innovation, Production and Sustaintable Job Crea-
tion: Reviving U.S. Prosperity – from MIT Industrial Perfor-
mance Center – February 2012).
In short, from the conceptual point of view the lineal model
in which knowledge and technology transfer was performed
as a single ow from basic research to innovation, was left
aside. In accordance to this phenomenon, during the last
years, new trends have emerged (especially developed by
large and medium size companies) which support the busi-
ness strategy oriented towards innovation through partner-
ship with external research groups (coming from the sci-
entic and technological system) under a new conceptual
framework: the open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003). This
approach has particular relevance in some disciplinary elds
such as biotechnology in which boundaries between basic
science and technology have “blurred”, causing an intense
interaction between companies and the university research
system (Pisano, 2006).
On the other side, the systemic character of innovation
places the problem of knowledge appraisal as a core issue.
In this way, intellectual property (IP) becomes the focus of
some business strategies in order to improve or maintain
their competitiveness, while for scientic and technological
organizations IP represents an effort to control and ensure
knowledge transfer from R&D labs, especially in developing
countries.
The interaction between intellectual property rights and
the mechanisms for developing scientic and technological
knowledge has been a fertile ground for economic and po-
litical debate. A milestone in this dynamics has been reached
thirty years ago with the adoption of Bayh-Dole Act in the
United States which did not establish a valid legal framework
for other regions, but which has been considered the most
relevant precedent as regards R&D&i’s institutional policies,
extending its effect over almost the entire world. This law
has allowed university research groups, public administra-
tion and private companies to economically benet from
commercializing intellectual property rights over techno-
logical developments generated from federal government
funds. Under this law, those who beneted from federal
funds devoted to R&Dactivities had access to the right to
patent inventions and license companies. In order to foster
the exploitation of the results coming from State funded
research, Bayh-Dole Act has inuenced the behaviour of
universities and science and technology public institutions
regarding the use of patents as mechanisms for the dissemi-
nation and transfer of technology from research results. It
has also encouraged discussions over intellectual property
management models (Schmal R, 2010) and the current in-
ternational debate over science “privatization and commer-
cialization” (Mirowski, 2011).
Although some studies on patents economic value show
that only a few of them gain commercial value (Lanjouw J.
et al 1998), the development of IP protection policies by
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2
1The names and approaches about this new stage were diverse:
Knowledge Society (Drucker, 1969); Knowledge Era (Cas-
tells, 1996); Economics of Knowledge (OCDE); Post-industri-
al Society (Bell, 1973); Control Societies (Delleuze); Cogni-
tive Capitalism (Roullani et al, 2004); Informational Capitalism
(Zukerfeld, 2010) etc.

186
universities is increasingly important. Many universities have
developed technology transfer ofces, technology commer-
cialization ofces and even companies to obtain the licens-
ing of those patents, not only for the economic returns but
also to control both knowledge and technology use and ap-
plications. This phenomenon is consistent with the emerg-
ing search for university efciency and efcacy as regards
knowledge transformation into patents. This is shown by
some Brazilian studies of university patents fate (de Souza
Querido et al, 2011; Marques et al 2007) where it is stated
that the best performances regarding technological apprais-
al of scientic knowledge is achieved in those universities
where intellectual property management has gone through
a process of institutionalization.
In this context, and based on the conception that patents
can be necessary but not enough for the applicability of re-
search results, the relevance and appropriateness of analyz-
ing the correspondence between patent development and
R&Dactivities is shown. It has been recently demonstrated
–within PMTIII evaluation process (Lugones, 2011)- that in
Argentina research grants assigned, on the basis of scien-
tic quality, generates a positive effect on both quality ans
amount of patent production among biomedic eld projects.
Furthermore, the problematization of this phenomenon ap-
pears as an opportunity to reect on the relationship among
scientic research investment, technology development pro-
cesses, industrialization and innovation.
Our strategy in carrying this analysis is to identify and study
scientic articles references in patents documents. According
to Pisano’s viewpoint (op.cit.), taking into account the large
amount of reference to scientic literature in biotechnology
patents, Narin and Noma (1985: 369) concluded that “the
division between leading edge biotechnology and modern
bioscience has almost completely disappeared”. Callaert’s
work also provides evidence in this sense by demonstrat-
ing through statistical data the strong connection between
the technological elds of chemical and pharmaceutical in-
dustries and scientic activity in terms of the importance
placed on scientic papers within Non patent references in-
tensity (Callaert 2006, op. cit.). It is precisely due to bound-
ary blurring in this eld of study that contradictions about
the traditional conception of science and technology reveal
themselves: science as an area of knowledge accumulation
with a strong emphasis in publication, as opposed to tech-
nology focused on knowledge generated by others, which
is strongly linked to the conception of property (Narin y
Noma, op.cit.).
Blurring boundaries between science and technology is a
new phenomenon especially in intensive elds such as bio-
technology or nanotechnology. Thus, the appearance of de-
velopments based on patented scientic works becomes
increasingly more frequent generating a sort of “inclusive
appropriation”5 (Zukerfeld, 2010) which guides the knowl-
edge ow from universities and public institutions towards
private companies without a real connection. On the other
hand, the issue of local appropriation of scientic knowledge
has also been broadly discussed in the Latin American con-
text (Kreimer, 2006).
However, the focus of our work aims to reect on both
intervention strategies and tools which allow the capitaliza-
tion of the value generated through R&D developed in the
public sector, without discussing wether or not knowledge
must be “released”, since the researcher nds himself in a
constant tension between publishing –issue through which
he is academically assessed- and keeping the secret in order
to proctect that knowledge, which he may or not be able to
turn into useful technology.
Background to the study of scientic references in
patents
The study of patent documents has been used with differ-
ent purposes. In general, it has been linked to a concern
for quantitatively assessing science and technology contribu-
tion to economic development and also, among others, for
characterizing the interaction between science, technology
and industry. Particularly, we are interested in those works
which have questioned the link between scientic output
and technological developments –protected by patents. And,
while most of them tend to analyze and characterize differ-
ent ways of linking scientic to technological development
activities, in some of them it is possible to nd interesting
issues for our analysis.
A rst point of analysis is related to the structure of patent
documents in which three parts may be basically observed
(Ganguli and Blackman, 1995): 1- cover, including title, in-
ventors, applicants, references to other documents – mainly
patents and scientic works-, and application and publication
dates; 2- full text which includes a detailed description of
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2
2Zukerfeld (2010, pp 116-120) denes Inclusive Appropriation as a
regulatory modality by which capitalist companies exploit –through
Intellectual Property- free knowledge, taking advantage of that pro-
duction modality which concentrates itself in capitalizing unpaid
knowledge production, that is to say, the one carried out outside
the company business structure. Unlike the industrial production
model, this procedure does not violate any law, since it is based
on the exploitation of the weak –generally voluntary- exercise of
intellectual property rights. While Zukerfeld introduces this con-
cept associated to computer business, in this case it may be ex-
trapolated to the eld of biotechnology since knowledge is –volun-
tarily- released through the publication of papers and conference
presentations.

187
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2
the invention, history, explanatory graphics and data tables;
3- claims wich establish those legal elements protected by
patents. The work of Narin and Moma (op.cit), pioneer in
the study of the relationship between scientic works and
patents provides an initial discussion about the place where
scientic references are located, distinguishing those which
appear on the patent cover –included o approved by the
examiner- and those which appear in the body of the text
–included by the inventor or applicant.
In this sense, it is possible to differentiate between the im-
portance of a quote appearing in either place. First, for some
authors, a quote appearing on the list of references of the
patent cover becomes the most important, since it means
the examiner relied on those documents to establish the
novelty of the invention (Narin and Noma, op.cit.). How-
erver, appearing in the cover but not in the body of the pat-
ent text could mean certain bias the examiner places on the
patent and not a direct link with the invention. Among their
conclusions, of signicant statistical value for their sample,
the authors established that on the average patents, only
15% of the scientic references were included in the cover
(Narin y Noma, op.cit). On the other hand, the inclusion
of references in the body of the text would undoubtedly
indicate having taken the quoted work as a relevant prec-
edent for supporting the invention. This could be taken as
a sign of the technological value that inventors assigned to
cited knowledge, being these a key precedent to the blind
technological transfer process However, it is also possible to
establish different relevance levels in this last case depending
on the place and way in which the quote has been written.
Some of these considerations can be found in Meyer’s work
(2000) altough this autor focuses on the sistematization of
quotes in the eld of nanotechnology.
In works such as those of Perko and Narin (1997) interest-
ing precedents about the relationship between science and
technology patented in the public sector can be found by
tracking quotes in US patents especially in scientic research
works related to the United States Department of Agricul-
ture (USDA). The author suggests that those scientic pa-
pers quoted in patents are a “unique” source of information
about the transfer of scientic results in patented innova-
tions. In a later work, it is stated that “it is plausible to state
that more scientic references signal greater relevance or
relationship between the technology at hand and scientic
activity” (Callaert op.cit.). In this sense, the inclusion of a
scientic paper in a patent could be understood as an in-
dicator of the technological value of referenced research.
Understanding this movement from science to industry
through IP opens new opportunities and questions, since
it asks whether universities and government agencies can
identify potential technologies and companies with which
they can cooperate and reach research and development
agreements. In some way, this improves the expected useful-
ness of research results, that is, the analysis of scientic pa-
pers quotes in patents becomes itself a tool for technology
transfer management.
From a policy analysis perspective, the work of Narin, Ham-
ilton and Olivastro (1997) has been a great inspiration since
it indicates the strong bond between public sciences for the
development of technology, noting the recurring quotes to
scientic papers published in a large group of patents by
publicly funded institutions. Meanwhile, Krauskopf (2007)
shows the importance of this type of analysis for Latin
American countries as he studies the impact of scientic
research carried out in Chile about technologies patented
in the United States between 1984 and 2003. That paper
concludes that local research is not used by the local indus-
try, but rather the American companies have appropriated
Chilean R&D results.
In a country like Argentina which is poorly industrialized
and which has especially applied liberal recepes from the
‘90s, the role of intellectual property has not been seriously
discussed yet, nor has it been its relation to industrial and
innovation policies. While these discussions were valid in
the ‘70s and ‘80s with studies on intellectual property (Katz
1975) especially with regard to pharmaceutical industry, they
did not become sectorial public policies. That is why it can
be inferred that although Argentina developed an important
scientic basis, especially in biomedicine, it has not make
enough industrial, productive and social use of the results
achieved with or without intellectual property existence.
Furthermore, knowledge generated by Argentinean scien-
tists over the last 70 years (some of which had their origin in
the jobs of two rst Argentinean Nobel Prizes) served as ba-
sis for some international companies to develop new medi-
cines or vaccines in their own countries (Goldstein, 1987).
Fortunately, Argentina has seen its budget for science and
technology substantially increased since 2003 and the in-
stitutional development of the science and technology sys-
tem has evolved (from the creation of a Ministry of Science,
Technology and Innovation in 2007). In addition, public-pri-
vate partnerships under the open innovation model is also
emerging incipiently (Codner and Diaz, 2009), being sup-
ported by various public instruments which promote the
new Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. This
set of political actions have affected the eld of biotechnol-
ogy, developing new businesses and increasing the number
of patent applications (Codner, 2011). However, there is no
evidence on the relevance of knowledge transfer from the
public sector to industry (Codner and Diaz, op.cit.).
Therefore, it is particularly relevant to explore the fate of
biotechnology research papers produced in Argentina. Our

188
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2
hypothesis establishes that part of the local R&D is exog-
enously appropriated and can be measured through the ref-
erence of scientic papers in foreign patents.
This paper seeks to explain -troughout a case study- how
the scientic and technological knowledge from Quilmes
National University has been owing towards foreign organ-
izations and companies. In this sense, it also aims at reect-
ing on the technological value of the produced knowledge,
the role of technology transfer management and the insti-
tutional meaning of blind technology transfer processes. The
approach combines both qualitative and quantitative aspects
not focused on the methodological approach about patent
quoting analysis. Our paper focuses on the discussion over
the appropriation of technological knowledge generated by
institutions engaged in scientic and technological research,
especially in highly dynamic disciplinary elds such as bio-
technology.
Methodology and procedure
This research is based on a sample built by identifying scien-
tic papers written by researchers from Quilmes National
University3 mentioned in patents applied from The United
States and/or international context via PCT4.
Meassurement5 was performed through the Delphion plat-
form -from Thompson Reuters (www.delphion.com)- which
offers complete documents on patenting coming from the
world’s most important international patent databases as
well as searching technology and tools for analysis with di-
rect access to more than 54 million records.
Whole text of the patent application was scanned, as quota-
tions can appear both on the rst page as in any part of the
project narrative.
At rst, the full names of the researchers were searched for.
Then, the scientic title of the article referenced was exam-
ined, and nally the institution was identied. This process
is based on the very brief way in which scientic papers
are quoted in patents, where only the initials for the author
names appear next to his/her surname.
A problem posed by this methodology is the identication
and verication of the quoted researchers (authors) identity
due to two issues. First, the existence of homonymous and
constrains generated by the citing ways chosen by research-
ers regarding the fact that in general, quotes mention the
name of the rst author to sign the paper, which only allows
the detection of just the rst researcher to sign the cited
paper. In this sense, there are differences between patents
registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Ofce (USPTO)
and in the European Patent Ofce (EPO) in terms of quota-
tions contained therein due to different policies employed.
Second, another methodological aspect to note is that in
those papers where the quote corresponds to a leading re-
searcher whithout explicitly mentioning the rest of the team
who participated in the job, only the name of the leading
researcher was taken into account. That is, measurement can
be incomplete since only the author leading the job appears
in the reference, for example: “Giampieri C., et al.” Thus, the
participation of other researchers who signed the paper
other than in leading position becomes invisible.
The counting methodology was performed on one patent
per family6. That is, each scientic article was identied in
one patent no matter where that invention had been pre-
sented. In this way duplication was avoided.
In order not to duplicate counting, it was decided to seek
out the heads of R&Dgroups. Thus, a sample of 14 research-
ers able to conduct R&Dprojects in the area of biotechnol-
ogy at the university was selected.
The sample resulting from this search was established in 52
patent families which quoted scientic papers written by
UNQ researchers applied between 1999 and 2010. Since the
UNQ is a university founded in 1989, most of its researchers
had already developed R&Dactivities in other institutions,
that is why only those 30 applications referencing scientic
papers postmarked after the researchers admission to the
UNQ were considered for this analysis.
This criterion was applied in order to remove those re-
search activities developed prior to joining the UNQ and
with the aim to dene the sample only with data related to
R&D activities developed in the framework of this university.
Although this may result an arbitrary selection, it represents
an effort to identify those research results on which the
university could take action at the time of implementing its
intellectual property protection policies, industrial exploita-
tion or simply its technology transfer to society.
3Quilmes National University had a staff of 350 teacher-research-
ers and 170 scholarship holders (28% full-time research faculty,
25% researchers able to manage projects).
4The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) was developed at Wash-
ington on June 19, 1970, modied and amended last Oct. 3, 2001.
5Meassurement was carried out by Ing. Ernesto Machicote from
BERKEN IP S.A. under the supervision of Darío Codner.
6A patent family is the set of patent documents which share prior-
ity, that is, resulting from the same priority application.

189
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2
Results
On the 14 group leaders used to dene the researchers
sample, only 6 of them appear quoted in those 30 foreign
patents that made up the nal corpus for this paper. On
this universe of patents, an analysis of the application docu-
ments tending to question the technological value of knowl-
edge published by UNQ researchers was performed. This
analysis yielded data regarding three different focal points:
a) the time gap for the technological application of scientic
knowledge; b) the institutional features of the asignees; and
c) the proximity to the technological “core” protected by
the patent.
A – FIRST FOCAL POINT: Technological value
through temporal dynamics
The rst focal point refers to the time gap between the
scientic paper publication and the patent application with
the paper reference.
Fig.1. Time in years between paper publication and patent application
Fig.2. Assignee distribution

190
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2
In the analyzed sample the time between the scientic paper
publication and the patent application is highly variable and
ranges form 0 to 13 years, with a mean of 6.9 years. From a
total of 30 patents, in most cases (63%) the transfer occured
between 6 and 11 years; it is important to note that 10%
of patents have been applied within two years of the paper
publication, which could result in an indicator of the techno-
logical potential of knowledge (see Fig. 1).
B– SECOND FOCAL POINT: technological value
according to institucional features.
This second focal point focuses on the institutional feature
of the patent applicant. In this sense, three groups have been
identied: applications from companies, from inventors and
from public or private institutions which main activity is
R&D(see Fig. 2)
From this taxonomy it appears that 53% of examined pat-
ent applications were submitted by companies, including
Bayer Schering Pharma, Aktiengesellschaft, Isis Pharmaceu-
ticals, Trubion Pharmaceuticals, TranzymePharma Inc., Tracie
Martyn International Ltd, Dionex Corporation and IPSAT-
Therapies Oy AB and St. Jude Medical. In contrast, 30% of
patents were submitted by scientic organizations or tech-
nology transfer ofces. Among them, we can mention ac-
tive institutions in the eld of technology transfer, as Yeda
Research and Development (Waissman Institute of Israel),
the University of North Carolina, Georgia State University
Research Foundation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid,
Tokyo University of Science Educational Foundation, Univer-
sity of Bristol, Stanford J. University, Parker Hughes Institute,
North Shore Long Island Jewish Research Institute, MUSC
Foundation for Research Development, Emory University
and Dalhousie University. Finally, in the 13% of the patents
the asignees were individual inventors7.
C – THIRD FOCAL POINT: Technological value ac-
cording to the contribution to the invention
The third focal point aims at highlighting the technological
importance assigned to the scientic article in accordance
to its contribution to the patent technological development.
This analysis led to identifying three patterns which could
indicate the distance between the technological core pro-
tected by the patent and the knowledge developed in the
UNQ: a) integrating the state of the art, b) providing scien-
tic evidence and c) contributing some method of produc-
tion (see g. 3).
On the one hand, 37% of the analyzed patents contain infor-
mation about scientic papers as basic reference of the state
of the art in which the invention was developed. For ex-
ample, the invention US 2009/0111110 A1 entitled “Method
7The information about inventors in some cases does not allow to identify whether they belong to a particular organization or they are
individuals who personally apply for the patent.
Fig.3. Distribution according to tecnology location

191
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2
of diagnosing adolecent idiopathic scoliosis and related sin-
droms Rausing spinal deformities and method for screening
for a compound useful in treatment of any of these diseases”
on page 11 (REFERENCES section) describes the scientic
paper without further mention.
On the other hand, 50% of the analyzed patents indicate
that the papers provided scientic evidence. For example,
the invention US 2009/0208510 entitled “Antibodies and
pharmaceutical compositions containing same usefulness for
inhibiting activity pf metalloproteins” presents in its back-
ground a scientic evidence: “The uncontrolled breakdown
of connective tissue by metalloproteases is a feature of many
pathological conditions, probably resulting from an excess of
MMP activity or from an imbalanced ratio between the natu-
ral MMP tissue inhibitors (TIMPs) and MMPs. TIMPs inhibit
MMPs by forming stoichiometric complexes with the active
zinc binding site of MMPs” drawn from the scientic paper.
Finally, 13% of the analyzed patents describe the use of tech-
nological methods which determine production protocols,
an example of this is the case of a paper quoted in the pat-
ent application US 6737520 B2 entitled “Oligonucleotides
having A-DNA form and B-DNA form conformational ge-
ometry” in which the scientic paper is quoted as follows:
:“The nucleosides were syntesized according to the proce-
dure described by researcher… ”. This may be evidence that
the published knowledge contributed signicantly to the
technological development protected by the patent.
Conclusions
The present study focuses on reecting upon the techno-
logical value of the knowledge generated, outlining a metrics.
On the one hand, a small percentage of scientic papers
were referenced in patents less than 2 years from their pub-
lication. This could be interpreted in terms of the relevance
of scientic results in the technological eld of the patent.
One question that emerges is which institutional mecha-
nisms should be or can be implemented to identify the op-
portunity provided by the publication, so as to increase the
likelihood of institutional appropriation of research results.
On the other hand, three patterns of contribution of scien-
tic knowledge to patented developments were identied:
a) integrated to the state of the art; b) providing scientic
evidence and c) contributing some method of production.
This taxonomy must be deeply discussed since it just at-
tempts to present an issue which requires the design of an
ad-hoc metrics not described by literature yet. It is impor-
tant to note that we considered the cites in the framework
of methods patterns (efcency and efcacy proven proce-
dures) and scientic evidence (empirical evidence support-
ing the invention) which represent a qualitatively higher in-
stance than the state of the art pattern. This could be due to
the fact that in the rst two instances, the results presented
by UNQ researchers represent an effort saving for the in-
ventors since, in case those results did not exist, researchers
should do the corresponding experiments to support them.
On the contrary, the state of the art would represent only
a framework allowing the development of experiments and/
or the establishment of the context for the eld of knowl-
edge in which the invention is developed. Our interpretation
is that those papers referenced in the state of the art, do
not hold any technological value by themselves. However,
we must indicate that this conceptualization is not deni-
tive but it represents a rst approach towards making visible
the need for developing a metris/taxonomy for assessing the
technological potential of scientic research results.
Furthermore, this work shows the ow and the appropria-
tion of scientic and technological knowledge developed in
the UNQ by foreign organizations and companies, whose cir-
culation and diffusion occurred without the university being
able to control, prevent or measure it. Somehow, and using
an analogy that is certainly controversial, we could charac-
terize the diffusion of knowledge through these mechanisms
as a process of “undifferentiated waste,” because there is no
prior identication of what can be used again or “recycled”
so that actions can be implemented in order to lead that
knowledge towards boosting local development, taking ad-
vantage of its value in the surrounding area.
Somehow, this sort of “liberation” of knowledge -typical of
the academic logic of science- can be understood as an in-
direct subsidy from the Argentinean public sector to foreign
companies. Being this type of phenomena invisible to the
political actions of the institution, we may consider them as
“blind technology transfer processes” or “just blind leakage
of knowledge” –which could also be considered as “brain
drain” or dened as a “brain gift”. We also think that with
the due variations, this happens in all S&T institutions in the
country.
In terms of implementation of innovation policies between
the central countries and developing countries a center-
periphery relationship is established which, among other
things, can be veried by observing the ow of knowledge
from developing todeveloped countries. This was a broadly
discussed issue, since 1960s, by the so called Latin American
School of Thought Science and Technology (Martinez Vidal,
2002).
Therefore, it is imperative to reect on the importance of
developing a National Innovation System that can absorb
some of the results of local research, either for exploitation
within the country or to be effectively marketed or licensed
abroad. We also face the problem of reecting on the need
to design new instruments to promote innovation which, on

192
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2
the one hand, further stimulate local industry connections
with the Argentinean scientic and technological subsystem,
and, on the other, control, guide and / or streamline this “in-
visible ow” of knowledge generated. This will require the
active participation of other ministries (Health, Agriculture,
particularly Industry) to complement and guide the inicia-
tives of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Productive
Innovation.
The universities will not be able to solve the lack of an in-
dustrial sector demanding research results, but it can be a
key actor in public policies for its own development (J. Vega
Jurado et al, 2007; Zawislak et al., 2011). That is why it is im-
perative to resignify the role of university technology trans-
fer ofces as it will be desirable to increase the likelihood of
research results appropriation. This forces us to think about
the institutional signicance of invisible technology transfer
processes by developing new strategies of knowledge ap-
propriation and appraisal.
In this context, although there are new tensions behind pat-
enting and / or publishing strategies, they do not appear to
be in opposition, rather they complement each other. The
benets of publishing or patenting cannot be shown without
an industrial system which that can appropriate the results
and technologies. Patenting research results funded almost
exclusively by the public sector has begun to be a “fashion”
in the scientic eld. A subtle tendency “to leave the labora-
tories”, to transfer knowledge, to “do business” or take part
in them has forced the discussion of this issue and encour-
aged the development of institutional and public policies
which allow for the solution of this “structural failure”.
As regards the political implications of blind technology
transfer, and, from the point of view of S&T institutions, we
can identify three simultaneous lines of action.
a-The awareness of researchers, whose logic leads them to
publish to grow -in recognition, funding and academically- on
the issue of blind technology transfer and its implications.
b-The protection of technological knowledge as a strategy
to monitor its application as regards both the context and
organizations, preventing leakage of knowledge to the for-
eign industry;
c-The promotion of local-regional development, in order be
able to appropriate the knowledge generated in the institu-
tion, and capitalize on immediate as well as long-term results.
These strategies aim at increasing the likelihood of local
appropriation and decreasing the opportunity to subsidize
foreing industrial developments.That is, they control the fate
of technological knowledge and, therefore the economic re-
sourses invested to achieve it. For that reason, it is necessary
to develop a policy oriented towards the protection and
diffusion in accordance to a model of privatization and free
acces to knowledge.
As it has been previously mentioned, technology transfer
ofces are key in the process of identifying that knowledge
which can be useful or necessary for the local context, so
that it can be protected and oriented towards potential
beneciaries. In this sense, knowledge transfer is no longer
invisible and can be subject to strategies for institutional or
territorial development. It is no longer a “undifferentiated
waste”.
We believe that this work represents a rst effort to identify
the phenomenon of blind technology transfer, and we do
not consider its results as conclusive ones. On the contrary,
we hope that this, as well as the following research work on
the subject, let us reect on the complexity of this problem,
and help us devise better and more effective strategies for
providing cross-fertilization between science, technology, in-
dustry and local development.
References
BELL, D. (1973 [2006]). El advenimiento de la sociedad post-
industrial (Alianza Editorial)
CALLAERT, J., VAN LOOY, B, VERBEEK, A., DEBACKERE, K
Y THIJS, B. (2006) “Traces of prior art: an analysis of non-
patent references found in patent documents” en Sciento-
metrics, Vol. 69, Nro 1 (2006) págs. 3 a 20.
CASTELLS M. (1996). “La red y el yo” en La Era de la Infor-
mación: Economía, sociedad y cultura (Edición de Hiperso-
ciología)
CHESBROUGH, H (2003) Open Innovation: The New Im-
perative for Creating and Proting from Technology. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
CODNER D. (2011) “Capítulo IV. Alcances, resultados e im-
pacto del FONCYT entre 2006 y 2010” en Porta, F. y G.
Lugones (directores), Investigación cientíca e innovación
tecnológica en Argentina. Impacto de los fondos de la Agen-
cia Nacional de Promoción Cientíca y Tecnológica, Bernal,
Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, 2011, pp. 133-181.ISBN
edición impresa 978-987-558-234-7. ISBN libro electrónico
978-987-558-238-5.
CODNER D. y DÍAZ A. (2009) “Biotecnología en Argentina:
innovación tecnológica y sociedad. Producción y uso de
conocimientos”. Yale University. Law School. Information So-
ciety Project. Access to Knowledge Program. http://yaleisp.
org/publications/a2kresearch/

193
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2
DAVID P. y FORAY D. (2002). “Una introducción a la
economía y a la sociedad del saber”. Revista Internacional
de las Ciencias Sociales. Número 171. 7-28
DE SOUZA QUERIDO A et al (2011) “What is the Destiny
of Patents of Brazilian Univesities?” J. Techno.Manag.Innov.
Vol 6, Issue I.
DRUCKER, P. (1969). The Age of Discontinuity Guidelines to
Our Changing Society. New York: Harper & Row.
FREEMAN, C. (1982). “Technological infrastructure and in-
ternational competitiveness”, draft paper submitted to the
OECD ad hoc group on science, technology and competi-
tiveness, Paris: OCDE;
FREEMAN, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic per-
formance - lessons from Japan. London: Frances Pinter.
GANGULI, P., BLACKMAN, M.J.R., (1995). “Patent docu-
ments: a multi- edge tool.” World Patent Information 17 _4.,
245–256.
GIBBONS M, et al. (1997) “La nueva producción del cono-
cimiento” Ed. Pomares-Corredor
GOLDSTEIN, D. (1987) “Biotecnología, Universidad y Políti-
ca” . Siglo XXI Ed., págs.. 199 – 200.
HETZKOWITZ, H. y LEYDESDORFF, L., Eds (1997). “Uni-
versities in the Global Economy: A Triple Helix of University-
Industry- Government Relations”, London: Casell Academic.
KATZ J. (1975)“Patentes, corporaciones multinacionales y
tecnologías.Un examen crítico de la legislación internacion-
al”, cap. 12.. En J. Sábato (ed.) El pensamiento latinoameri-
cano en la problemática ciencia – tecnología-desarrollo –
dependencia. Ed. Paidós, BsAs;
KLINE S. y ROSENBERG N. (1986) “An overview of inno-
vation.” In R. Landau & N. Rosenberg (eds.), The Positive
Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, pp. 275–305.
KRAUSKOPF M.et al. (2007) “Link between science and in-
novation affects public policies in developing countries: The
Chilean case”. Scientometrics, Vol. 72, No. 1 93–103
LANJOUW J. O., et al (1998), How to count patents and
value intellectual property: the uses of patent renewal and
application data, Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(4),
405-432.
LUGONES G, et al (2011). “Investigación cientíca e inno-
vación tecnológica en Argentina : impacto de los fondos de
la por Fernando Porta y Gustavo Lugones. - 1a Ed. - Bernal:
Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. ISBN: 978-987-558-234-7
LUNDVALL, B.-Å. (1985). Product innovation and user-pro-
ducer interaction. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.
MARQUES, R and GONÇALVES NETO, C (2007) “The Bra-
zilian system of innovation in biotechnology: a preliminary
study” J.Tech Man Innov., vol 2; issue 1; pag. 55 - 63
MARTÍNEZ VIDAL. C.(2002) La Escuela Latinoamericana de
Pensamiento en Ciencia, Tecnología y Desarrollonotas de un
Proyecto de Investigación. CTS+I: Revista Iberoamericana de
Ciencia, Tecnología, Sociedad e Innovación, ISSN 1681-5645,
Nº. 4, 5 – 30.
MEYER, M. (2000). “Does Science push technology? Patents
citing scientic literature” en Research Policy nro. 29, págs.
409-434.
MIROWSKI, P. (2011). “Science – Mart . Privatizing American
Science” – Harvard University Pres – 2011;
NARIN, F. y NOMA, E. (1985) “Is technology becoming Sci-
ence?” en Scientometrics, Vol. 7, Nros 3-6, págs 369-381.
NARIN, F., HAMILTON, K., y OLIVASTRO, D. (1997), “The
increasing linkage between US technology and public sci-
ence”, en Research Policy, 26 (3) : 317–330.
NELSON, R. (1995). Recent Evolutionary Theorizing about
Economic Change. Journal of Economic Literature, Volumen
23, Marzo 1995, pp.48-90.
NELSON, R. Y S. WINTER. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory
of Economic Change. Harvard University Press.
NELSON, R., ed. (1993). National Systems of Innovation. Ox-
ford University Press.
PERKO J. S. y NARIN F. “The Transfer of Public Science to
Patented Technology: A Case Study in Agricultural Science”
Journal of Technology Transfer Vol. 22 (3) 65-72, 1997
PISANO, G. (2006) “Science Business”, Harvard Business
School Press.
RULLANI, E. (2004). ¨El capitalismo cognitivo ¿un déjà- vu?,¨
en O. Blondeau, et al., Capitalismo cognitivo, propiedad in-
telectual y creación colectiva (Madrid: Tracantes de sueños)
http://sindominio.net/tracantes/editorial/capitalismocogni-
tivo.htm consultado noviembre de 2011

194
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2
SÁBATO, J. Y BOTANA, N.(1970) “La ciencia y la tecnología
en el desarrollo de América Latina”, en Herrera Amílcar y
otros. América Latina: Ciencia y Tecnología en el desarrollo
de la sociedad, Colección Tiempo latinoamericano, Editorial
Universitaria SA, Santiago de Chile, 1970, pp.59-76.
SCHMAL R. et al (2010) Modelado de Procesos de Negocio
para la Gestión de Patentes en Universidades). Información
Tecnológica Vol. 21(6), 113-124
TEUBAL, M. (1996). R&D and Technology Policy at NICs as
Learning Processes. World
VEGA-JURADO,J; FERNÁNDEZ DE LUCIO, I and HUAN-
CA-LOPEZ, R. (2007) “¿La relación universidad - empresa
en América Latina: apropiación incorrecta de modelos forá-
neos?” ; J. Techno.Manag.Innov. Vol 2, issue I, pag 97 - 109
ZAWISLAK, P.A. and G. DALMARCO. 2011. “The Silent Run:
New Issues and Outcomes for University-Industry Relations
in Brazil”. J. Techno.Manag.Innov. Vol 6, Issue II.
ZUKERFELD, M. (2010). Capitalismo y conocimiento. Mate-
rialismo cognitivo, propiedad intelectual y capitalismo infor-
macional. –Tesis de Doctorado, FLACSO.

195
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2