Scholars explain the need for regulating quantum technologies and propose guiding principles.
Google announced a new computer chip that, in under five minutes, can perform computations that would take even today’s fastest super computer 10 septillion years—or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years—to complete.
The key to this computer chip’s speed is its ability to harness quantum mechanics, or the movement of subatomic particles such as electrons, to operate exponentially faster than traditional and even supercomputers. Technology that can harness quantum mechanics in this way are known as quantum technologies and include a range of products from quantum chips, quantum computers, and even quantum internet.
These quantum technologies, however, are in very early stages of development. Nevertheless, this advancement raises questions about when these technologies may be widely available, which in turn raises questions about if, and how, policymakers should regulate them.
Mauritz Kop and several coauthors address these regulatory questions in a recent article and propose a framework to facilitate the responsible development of quantum technologies.
The Kop team acknowledges that the emergent nature of these technologies meant researchers had no need to consider the ethical, legal, social, and policy implications of quantum technologies over the past thirty years. But now, the Kop team notes, the world is undergoing a “quantum revolution” that will spark the need for discussion as quantum technologies evolve from pure science to real world applications.
The Kop team emphasizes that quantum technologies have the potential to impact a variety of areas, from national economic security to health care. In this insight, the Kop team highlights an array of benefits and risks of quantum technologies. Specifically, the team focuses on the “dual use” risk associated with quantum technologies.
Dual use concerns arise when the capabilities of technology that can be used to produce benefits for society can also be used in another context to cause harm. For instance, the Kop team previews that quantum technologies could enhance the modeling and development of pharmaceuticals, thereby accelerating the development of new medical treatments. This same capability, however, can be used to identify and develop biological weapons—giving this technology a problematic dual use. The Kop team argues that because of this dual use risk, among other concerns, quantum technologies must be regulated to minimize risks while enabling advancements to maximize benefits to society.
As an initial solution to this problem, the Kop team explains that policymakers and researchers could turn to guidelines developed to regulate other advanced technical fields, such as artificial intelligence and nanotechnologies. These solutions, including employing the European Union’s “Responsible Research and Innovation” approach, focus on ensuring an open dialogue between researchers, citizens, policymakers, and other stakeholders to anticipate and understand potential risks and dangers of quantum technologies.
Kop and his coauthors, however, contend that quantum technologies are so unique—and dangerous—that they require unique policies and strategies. To address these novel challenges, the Kop team developed the “Safeguard, Engage, and Advance” framework for responsible quantum technology. The framework derives its name from its goals of safeguarding against the risks of quantum technologies, engaging stakeholders in the technology’s development, and advancing the technology’s development.
The Kop team argues that these objectives should be integrated throughout three levels: the technical; the ethical; and the societal, legal, and policy. The technical level includes establishing standards for a technology’s performance. The ethical level, Kop and his coauthors reason, should set the foundational principles that would help guide decision-making in the other levels. Finally, the social, legal, and policy level focuses on how society will be impacted by any legal frameworks and policy decisions related to quantum technology.
This framework, the authors propose, can then be used by policymakers to make informed decisions in their regulations. Regulators can analyze a proposed rule to ensure that these three levels and the goals of the framework are balanced. This balance would then ensure that regulators are not fixated on only one of these dimensions, as the Kop team suggests is likely without such a framework.
Yet, in setting out the framework, Kop and his coauthors acknowledge that there are several limiting factors in its applicability and future value. For example, the Kop team explains that many guidelines, such as ethical principles, may contradict each other sometimes. These conflicts would require stakeholders to determine which guidelines should take priority.
Likewise, it is possible that more specific quantum technologies may need more specific guiding principles or that, as the field develops and even more new discoveries are made, the guiding principles will need to be amended.
Given these limitations, the Kop team states that its framework, at least initially, should not be used as binding law. Instead, it should be used as a reference point for self-regulation or future regulation.
Quantum technologies are so new and complex that any regulatory efforts now may become obsolete soon. As a result the Kop team suggests that, at a minimum, the framework should be used to ensure that regulators are “asking the right questions” when looking at their options for intervention to assure responsible and sustainable development of these technologies.
