Oxford, Stanford teams release Framework for Responsible Quantum Research

In the early pioneers of scientific discovery, researchers did not need to be directly involved in the ethical, legal, social, and policy implications of quantum technologies (QT) (Quantum-ELSPI). But as we have seen, 2G QT is moving from pure science to real-world applications, and we must broaden our perspective to consider the development and use of QT in human and social settings.

 

 

- What does this mean for legal and other social institutions?

 

- How should QT be developed and regulated?

 

 

The introduction of 2G QT in society raises important national security and regulatory issues related to dual-use security, privacy, product security and liability, intellectual property, fair competition, and equality. For example, quantum algorithms have the potential to undermine current cryptographic protocols and threaten the information security and data privacy of their users, thereby destabilizing society and undermining trust in their institutions.

 

The breadth, speed of maturation, and potential impact of 2G QT in the current human and social environment make it a top priority for participation in the emerging interdisciplinary research field of Quantum-ELSPI. Recently, a multinational joint team of Oxford, Stanford, and Waterloo Universities turned to beneficial societal outcomes to propose a conceptual framework for responsible QT - the SEA framework - that takes into account the ethical, legal, social, and policy implications of quantum computing (Quantum-ELSPI) and responds to key responsible research and innovation (RRI) dimensions.

 

Based on the concept of Responsible QT (Responsible Quantum Technology), calling for the integration of ELSPI considerations in quantum innovation and taking into account the societal context at an early stage, the related team proposes an overarching framework for responsible quantum innovation and advises on its operation by establishing quantum-specific guiding principles. It targets researchers, developers, innovators, and regulators, but it may also inspire other stakeholders.

 

SEA-Framework for Responsible Quantum Technologies

 

The concept of responsible QT aims to ensure that ethical, legal, socio-economic, social and philosophical dimensions are identified and discussed, while QT remains viable.

 

From a normative perspective, the goal is to capture and promote the beneficial opportunities presented by quantum innovation by implementing risk-appropriate technical, organizational and policy measures, while managing potential downside risks. Currently, many QT applications, such as large-scale fault-tolerant quantum computers or the quantum Internet, are still in the basic research stage, and indeed, many societal implications remain unknown, and other applications, such as noisy mesoscale quantum (NISQ) computers, and in silico design of new catalysts, materials, and drugs using scalable quantum simulations of molecular energies, are at a much higher technology readiness level ( TRL).

 

It is because of the early stage of technology and its far-reaching potential that we have a shared opportunity and responsibility to move it toward desired societal outcomes.

 

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is an approach that aims to ensure that scientific and technological developments are conducted in a socially desirable, ethically acceptable and sustainable manner.RRI is a process involving an ongoing dialogue between researchers, citizens, industry, policy makers and other stakeholders to actively anticipate and assess the potential social and ethical impacts of research, development and innovation.

 

According to the European Commission, the four important dimensions of RRI are anticipation, inclusion, reflection, and responsiveness.

 

1) Anticipation entails identifying and addressing potential social and ethical issues that may arise;

2) Inclusion implies involving a wide range of stakeholders in the innovation process, including those who may be affected by the outcome;

3) Reflection involves an ongoing assessment of the values and assumptions that support research and innovation, and consideration of how they may affect outcomes;

4) Responsiveness means responding to stakeholder feedback and concerns and adjusting accordingly.

 

In summary, RRI is about ensuring that research, development, and innovation are aligned with the needs and values of society and contribute to the common good.

 

Linking the RRI dimensions and ELSPI considerations to responsible quantum R&D, categorized according to the SEA Framework's triple elements of protecting, engaging, and advancing QT, a catalog of principles for responsible QT can be imagined as follows:

 

- Addressing security threats by including information security as an integral part of QT;

- Proactively anticipating malicious use of quantum applications and addressing the risk of dual use;

- Seeking international cooperation based on shared values to address the winner-takes-all dynamic;

- Seeing our planet as the socio-technical environment in which QT should function;

- Being as open as possible, and as closed as necessary, to participation in a variety of institutions;

- Pursuing a diverse quantum R&D community in terms of disciplines and people involved;

- Explicitly linking quantum R&D to desired societal goals and advancing society;

- Actively promoting sustainable, interdisciplinary innovation that advances technology;

- Creating an ecosystem to understand the possible uses and consequences of QT applications and to promote our understanding of responsible QT;

- Promoting dialogue with stakeholders to better envision possible quantum futures and to advance our collective thinking and education about QT and its impacts.

 

In response to the various scenarios and challenges faced above, SEA contributes in the following ways.

 

First, it provides an analytical lens to help examine the role, purpose, and process dimensions of emerging regulations, whether general in nature or specific to QT, in order to identify and examine these issues in their respective application contexts and regulatory domains. the SEA framework can provide not only substantive anchors, but also procedural guidance that can be shared among different QT stakeholders to unlock "Regulation as facilitation" potential.

 

Second, the SEA framework can serve as a reference point to assess or evaluate regulatory initiatives on key issues, i.e., the extent to which these regulatory efforts strike a balance between protecting, engaging, and advancing QT.

 

Finally, it provides at least some initial guidance on how regulatory interventions for quantum as an underlying/generic technology can be designed, contextualized, and tailored to its particular nature, balancing open innovation and risk control. The success of this joint optimization will also depend on the strength of the engagement component of the framework, which emphasizes the importance of ongoing dialogue between regulators, experts, and industry to ensure that regulation remains effective and responsive to emerging technology developments.

 

Taken together, the SEA framework for responsible QT and its implementation principles may inform current and future regulations. Creating horizontal (federal or international level) norms for QT as an underlying technology applicable to industry and economic sectors is an urgent task that should be undertaken before the technology is locked in. But it is also a challenging task because any regulation must consider the particular, counterintuitive characteristics of applied quantum physical phenomena, its unseen functions, and the potential for their dual use - balancing open innovation, value appropriation, intellectual property, fair trade and competition, and risk control.

 

Moreover, the inherent uncertainty supports the application of emerging QT to real-world systems, products and use cases, calls for risk-based approaches, and incentives for sustainable innovation. To some extent, the SEA framework responsible for QT is informed by the technical and physical foundations of QT, which in turn may help ensure that new rules and codified laws for QT address the same challenges.

 

Going forward, it will be necessary to complement the currently proposed framework with principles of responsible quantum innovation. This will require the collaboration of multidisciplinary teams composed of diverse quantum stakeholders. While the consequences and implications of QT remain largely unknown, it is hoped that this contribution will be an open invitation to researchers, innovators, and regulators to discuss and harmonize the future normative dimensions of QT, and the pathways to establish them.

 

Link to original article:

https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Kop-et-al_Towards-Responsible-Quantum-Technology.pdf

 

Reference link:

https://law.stanford.edu/publications/towards-responsible-quantum-technology/