Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Zeki Can Seskir
(Karlsruhe Institute of Technology)
Pieter Vermaas
Astrid Bötticher (University of Innsbruck)
Send message to Convenors
- Discussant:
-
Christopher Coenen
(Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT))
- Format:
- Traditional Open Panel
Short Abstract:
Quantum technologies (QT) promise revolutionary transformations in computing, communications, and sensing. Others add that these transformations are of value for addressing the Grand Societal Challenges. In this panel, we explore and scrutinize these latter narratives.
Long Abstract:
Quantum technologies (QT) promise revolutionary transformations across sectors, from computing to sensing. These innovations, such as quantum computers and quantum sensors, often represent modern iterations of existing technologies. A pertinent conversation within the QT community is the relevance of QT to Grand Societal Challenges (GSCs) like climate change and global inequalities.
The narratives surrounding QT are diverse. This open panel aims to critically evaluate these, particularly their alignment with the GSCs, therefore we invite submissions focusing on the relation between QT and GSCs. A list of potential topics (though not exhaustive) follows:
1. Given that we are at an early stage in the development of QT, ELSA (Ethical, Legal, and Social Aspects) provides a foundation for understanding and navigating the implications of QT as they evolve. Yet some critics view ELSA as a Western-centric approach and a socio-technical imaginary of its own as the meta paradigm insists on a “good” quantum-enabled global future. How should ELSA of QT be approached?
2. The Collingridge dilemma in QT: Considering the uncertainty characteristic of emerging technologies, there must be contemplation on effective governance and regulation of QT. How can the risks and uncertainties associated with QT be managed while promoting innovation? Within these frameworks, the focus is on understanding how risks and uncertainties linked to QT are being addressed and structural frameworks and process designs are employed.
3. Claims and use cases for "Quantum for Good": There are numerous proposed applications of QT that aim to address GSCs and contribute to the betterment of society. However, these claims require rigorous scrutiny and validation. We seek studies that critically assess the "Quantum for Good" initiatives.
Our panel endeavors to foster a comprehensive and critical dialogue on QT's trajectory and its potential societal contributions, leveraging the diverse 4S community for rich, STS-related inquiries surrounding QT.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Lorena Xiomara Gonzalez Acero (Università degli studi di Padova)
Short abstract:
This proposal aims to address the conceptual framing and entanglements around the idea of quantum technologies and communication makings and doings as an interesting scenario to understand an infrastructure ontological experiment.
Long abstract:
The study of ‘emerging technologies’ paves the way for the exploration of an entangled terrain where technoscientific futures and promises articulate, confront and rearrange themselves in a dynamic way. Futures are not given nor singularly defined but constitute processes and moving entities, unironically, being done in the present. Wondering about the future global challenges posed by the emergence of such technologies bring us closer to set an eye on the study of their present makings and doings, hoping to address in a more informed way such challenges. On that note, a diversity of STS approaches to multiplicity, performativity, enactment an choreographic possibilities of ontologies have been milestones in understanding how their practical nature is “about how worlds are concretely made, conjoined or transformed by the co-evolving relations of multiple agents” (2015). In this case, tracking quantum technologies/communication in their present-making/doing can help us address the also dynamic dimensions of ontologies, allowing us to imagine even emerging ones. By understanding quantum technologies as places where both the careful design and the unintended responses co-exist on the same plane and fold onto themselves producing new worlds, this proposal is a conceptual approach on how emerging technologies and innovation serve as a possible settings where it is possible to explore the conjunction of ontologies, experiments and infrastructures in the context of future makings and the promising prophecy of information and cybersecurity as grand societal challenges.
Jensen, C. B., & Morita, A. (2015). Infrastructures as Ontological Experiments. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 1, 81–87.
Astrid Bötticher (University of Innsbruck) Rashid Mustafin (Friedrich Schiller University Jena) Volker Gast
Short abstract:
The connection between places, organizational entities and linguistic connotations of quantum technology has rarely been examined so far, even though quantum technology is spoken about in different linguistic areas and different networks appear that are considered important.
Long abstract:
The connection between places, organizational entities and linguistic connotations of quantum technology and quantum computing in particular has rarely been examined so far, even though quantum technology is spoken about in completely different ways in different linguistic areas and different networks appear that are considered important for the development of quantum technology. The connection between important organizational networks and the linguistic negotiation of quantum technology is an important contribution to the analysis of the negotiation of technology in different linguistic areas.
As part of a network analysis, we categorized the various organizational entities, their connections and language patterns about the technology. The connection between the various players often negotiated as important or linguistically, their networking with each other and the exemplary negotiation processes about a new technology are presented in this article.
What are the linguistic connotations of quantum technology and quantum computers in particular? Which organizations are mentioned particularly frequently in published texts and in which linguistic context?
Katia Rivera (University of Trieste) Oxana Mishina (CNR - National research council) Pierluigi Masai
Long abstract:
Over the last decade, many research projects regarding Quantum Technologies have started. What has been defined as the Second Quantum Revolution promises to address topics such as quantum information or chemical synthesis which should redefine many fields of work. We aim to investigate how and whether the researchers and the investors have taken into consideration the costs of such technologies as compared to the expected benefits.
We propose to organize a roundtable to raise attention to the ethical aspects of the research on Quantum Technologies. One of the purposes is to engage the audience in an open discussion at the end of the presentation. The presentation will consist of three brief talks which will introduce the following topics to start and guide the discussion:
1. What are the differences between the First and the Second Quantum Revolution? What are the expected implementations of Quantum Technologies and what is their cost of production compared to their cost of usage?
2. Which goals drive the research? Is it already aimed at something? Who will hold the production and usage of the technologies?
3. Which role will quantum technologies play in the climate crisis? Will they contribute to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 C or will they make this goal harder to reach? We propose to adopt an in-depth cost-benefit analysis approach that takes into account environmental resources, as well as societal cost to assess the impact of quantum technologies.
Fabienne Marco (Technical University of Munich)
Long abstract:
Quantum technologies are currently under development, with a strong focus on quantum computing. At this stage, still being within the NISQ era (Noisy Intermediate Scale Quantum) quantum computing faces challenges related to reliability, practical application and capacity to solve complex problems. Regardless of the potential for quantum computing to beneficially revolutionize various sectors, including cyber security, pharmaceutical development, and transport systems, the push for further research and broader societal engagement with quantum computing has largely been propelled by concerns over arising encryption vulnerabilities. The amount of equally probable future trajectories of quantum technologies and their corresponding ethical issues, specifically in quantum artificial intelligence, raise new questions for surveillance, repression, and how to deal with new techno-social elements in democracies. To navigate the ethical and responsible advancement of quantum technologies, it is essential to establish policy frameworks encouraging beneficial outcomes while regulating the risks of these transformative technologies under consideration of its specificalities. I aim to identify disparities between the ethical intentions of balancing innovation and regulation and the actual narrative of different national quantum policies. To identify and analyze the gaps between the potential of quantum governance for good and existing governance strategies, I transfer the existing model of Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance by Ulnicane et al. (2022) to quantum technologies and researching its applicability using the RRI framework as benchmark. We identify the gaps within current national quantum governance strategies based on the proposed framework to conclude pivotal conditions for future innovation frameworks and narratives within quantum governance strategies.
Zeki Can Seskir (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) Adrian Schmidt (Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), KIT) Ulrike Genenz (RWTH Aachen)
Long abstract:
This paper examines the intersection of goals and values within grassroots organizations operating in the realm of quantum technologies (QT) education. It delineates a fundamental distinction between the objective to provide education and the drive to democratize learning through principles of inclusivity, accessibility, and diversity. The analysis reveals how these organizations navigate their nascent stages, grappling with the dual challenge of adhering to their foundational values while aspiring for sustainable growth and development in the highly specialized field of QT. The study uncovers the strategic approaches adopted by these entities, including efforts to create educational ecosystems and foster community engagement. The research underscores the potential vulnerabilities of these grassroots organizations, particularly in relation to the longevity and evolution of their initiatives as members transition into professional roles within the quantum sector. Through this investigation, the paper contributes to a nuanced understanding of how emerging educational organizations in the QT field balance their ideological commitments with practical growth considerations, highlighting the critical factors that influence their trajectory and impact.
Chihwei Yeh (National Sun Yat-sen University)
Short abstract:
Taiwanese quantum strategies shed light on a direction understudied: the embeddedness of quantum technologies in the global chips value chain (GCVC). This paper analyses TW policies with some observations on nearby countries, interrogating RRI by considering actors’ different positions in the GCVC.
Long abstract:
Technological advancement and innovative breakthroughs require both the epistemic and the material cultures. The study of Taiwanese quantum research strategies, in which the government mainly takes the lead, has identified a repetitive pattern understudied in the current European-centric literature on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). That is the embeddedness of quantum technologies in the global chips value chain (GCVC). GCVC implies the global distribution of labour that affords the chip's design (US), advanced equipment development (EU), chip fabrication, testing and packaging (Asia) and commercialisation (US and China). Quantum technologies at this stage, especially in the Western world, are generally regarded as applying quantum expertise to computer science and communication (design phase). However, without considering the GCVC, the RRI reflection and studies might neglect how and what different players can tackle and collaborate with from the upstream to the downstream of quantum technologies. This paper provides a policy analysis of Taiwanese quantum research strategies and some observations on nearby countries (i.e. China and South Korea), aiming to invite peers to co-create RRI and GSCs with considerations of actors' different positions in the GCVC.
Points of discussion are proposed as follows but are not limited:
1. How can hardware-based quantum research players contribute to 'quantum for good' and GSCs?
2. How might GCVC facilitate or forbid global discussions on RRI?
3. How can ELSA interrogate the geopolitical and politico-economic agendas on quantum competition and chip protection?
4. Besides user data, how do we consider the security issues related to industrial data?
Kelly Olenyik (University of Washington)
Short abstract:
How are the people developing quantum materials reconciling the promises of their technologies with the origins of the materials they use? We look at the story of tantalum qubits and niobium cables in quantum technologies to consider this question.
Long abstract:
The promises of quantum technologies are built on quantum materials. In the “quantum for good” discussion, it seems reasonable to wonder whether the sourcing of these materials is aligned with the transformational hopes that surround QT. As a case study, two minerals used in quantum materials will be reviewed: tantalum and niobium. In 2023, Google and Yale published results in Nature showing a dramatic increase in quantum error correction by using tantalum transmon qubits (Sivak 2023), but the celebration of this QT breakthrough did not mention that tantalum is a regulated conflict mineral (IEA). Superconducting coaxial cables connect quantum processors, and niobium titanium is a common material used in these cables (Kjaergaard 2020). Niobium deposits in southern Brazil currently source over 80% of global niobium and should meet production needs for 200-plus years. And yet, there is increasing political pressure to explore niobium deposits in the Amazon (Siqueira-Gay 2020). The ways in which quantum materials scientists grapple with this potentially high-risk relationship between technological development and mineral extraction will be presented.
1. Sivak, V. V., et al. “Real-time quantum error correction beyond break-even”. Nature. 2023. 616. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-023-05782-6.
2. IEA. “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.” URL: iea.org/policies/16713-dodd-frank-wall-street-reform-and-consumer-protection-act
3. Kjaergaard, M. “Superconducting qubits: current state of play.” Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 2020. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031119-050605
4. Siqueira-Gay, J. “Keep the Amazon niobium in the ground.” Environmental Science & Policy. 2020. 111. DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.012
Amber Geurts (TNO Vector)
Short abstract:
Faced with grand societal challenges, actors look at quantum technologies as potential solutions. However, there is significant divergence when it comes down to the solutions quantum technologies can offer. This paper offers a framework to understand the wickedness of the solution space.
Long abstract:
Faced with grand societal challenges (GSCs) like climate change, global inequalities, or the safeguarding of public values, actors increasingly look at quantum technologies as potential solutions. The narratives surrounding this “QT for good”-discourse are, however, diverse. Thus I ask: How can we understand the divergence regarding the potential of quantum technologies for good, and how can this understanding be used to manage the transition to a ‘good’ quantum enabled future?
To answer this research question, I look at the literature on GSCs and transitions. Within this literature, a prominent line of research has paid specific attention to the ‘wickedness’ of these challenges, arguing that persistent GSCs may need fundamental societal transformations, requiring not just technological, but also institutional and behavioral change. As such, GSCs can be understood as wicked problems as they are met with certain levels of contestation, complexity and uncertainty. Building upon these aspects of ‘wickedness’, I argue that a similar focus on the ‘wickedness’ of the solution space of these GSCs is needed – as this space is equally contested, complex and uncertain.
Building upon interviews and anecdotes from quantum scientists, I map out these three dimensions that determine the ‘wickedness’ of the solution space of “Quantum for good” and discuss how they incur divergence in the solution space. Based on these findings, a framework is built that can help quantum technologists, policy makers and societal actors to reach convergence on the solution space of Quantum for Good.
Sarah Wilson (Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney)
Short abstract:
This paper will contribute to critical ELSA scholarship by examining the question of effective QT governance. I will explore the efficacy of Australian legal responses to quantum dots through the lens of legal ontologies, and the ontological friction between quantum and legal-governance systems.
Long abstract:
While quantum technologies (QT) hold significant promise for addressing grand societal challenges, there is emerging scholarship that critically approaches these widespread ‘quantum for good’ narratives. It is recognised that QT, or ‘complex system[s] governed by the laws of quantum physics’ (Dowling and Milburn 2003), will engender normative and structural transformations in systems, processes, and institutions governed by classical physics. One such emerging area is the question of designing effective QT governance. QT challenge foundational classical assumptions around how technologies can and should work, and thus how governance systems can and should be designed in response.
Grounded in these questions of ontology, this paper offers a preliminary perspective to emerging critical ELSA scholarship around QT. I will explore QT governance through a case study of Australian legal-governance responses to quantum dots (QDs). QDs are an early form of quantum technology, and have reached relative commercial and technological maturity across a range of technical fields. In the overarching context of novelty and uncertainty that characterises QT, QDs offer a uniquely rich history through which to explore both ‘quantum for good’ narratives, and the efficacy of existing legal-governance responses. This paper will apply doctrinal research and legal philosophy to characterise and compare the ontologies that quantum technologies and legal systems inhabit. Given early analysis reveals that quantum and legal systems inhabit contrasting ontologies, I will then critically explore the tensions around QT that enact novel ontologies in the context of existing classical systems, and the implications of this for shaping quantum futures.
Eline de Jong (University of Amsterdam)
Short abstract:
In this paper, we aim to explicate the kind of understanding that enables non-technical experts to engage in critical thinking about a new technology, shedding light on the epistemic requirements for meaningful discussion in the ELSPI domain.
Long abstract:
Stakeholder engagement and participation, preferably upstream, is seen as a cornerstone of approaches to responsible technological innovation (e.g. Stilgoe, Owen, & MacNaghten, 2013; Coenen & Grunwald, 2017). This especially goes for disruptive technologies, that is: technologies that have the potential to profoundly change the status quo (De Jong, 2022). Engaging in critical thinking about new technology and its potential effects are, however, epistemically conditioned: In order to start thinking one must know what to think about. For that reason, calls for the importance of stakeholder inclusion and public debate in the context of quantum technology innovation are accompanied by calls for making these technologies understandable to a broader audience (Vermaas, 2017; Coenen et al., 2022; Seskir et al., 2023). This idea, that some degree of understanding of a technology is necessary to engage in a meaningful debate about it, echoes in policy (advisory) documents about quantum technologies (e.g. Rathenau, 2023: 3; Nationale Agenda Quantum Technologie, 2019: 40).
Notwithstanding the plausibility of the claim that thinking about (the impact of) a technology requires some degree of understanding of this technology, it is unclear what (a sufficient) ‘understanding of a technology’ means. In this paper we aim to explicate what kind or degree of 'understanding' enables critical thinking about a technology. We do so by building on the notion of 'technological understanding' (De Jong & De Haro, forthcoming), i.e. the kind of understanding that is involved in designing technological artefacts. From this expert notion, we derive a 'public' notion of technological understanding.