Quantum Governance and Ethical Innovation Strategies

I'm proud to share our latest work in Science on quantum governance. It was a pleasure to collaborate with the brilliant Mateo Aboy, Urs Gasser, and I. Glenn Cohen on this critical topic. https://lnkd.in/gjpVBdeV   In our new Science Magazine article, we chart a strategic course for governing quantum technologies amidst an accelerating global race for dominance. We propose a "standards-first" approach to ensure quantum technology develops safely, ethically, and in a way that fosters global interoperability.   We address the urgent need for a quantum governance framework. With a tenfold increase in quantum patents over the past two decades, the suite of technologies presents both immense opportunities (chemistry, drug discovery) and significant risks (cybersecurity threats, dual-use potential for weaponization). Building on insights from the annual Stanford RQT Conference, we argue that a standards-based model for regulation is uniquely suited to quantum's nascent stage. This approach, leveraging international bodies like ISO and IEC, can create shared definitions and technical protocols that prevent fragmentation and promote a stable, competitive global market. While not a silver bullet, these standards offer a pragmatic foundation for responsible innovation and can inform future regulation as the technology matures.   By focusing on a Quality Management System for Quantum Technologies (QT-QMS), we provide a concrete toolbox for developers and policymakers. A certifiable QT-QMS standard could help simplify future regulatory efforts and agility. Our goal is to build safety and reliability into the quantum supply chain from day one, which is essential for market adoption and public trust.   We stress that today's architectural choices will have lasting consequences. Drawing a parallel to the internet's development, we argue for embedding our values into the technology from the outset to build a safe, trustworthy global ecosystem. Quantum offers a rare opportunity to get it right from the start, using a flexible, standards-based approach to foster the global dialogue needed to prevent a fragmented and unstable quantum future.   Furthermore, we contend that proactive governance enables innovation rather than hindering it. The field of biotechnology taught us that clear ethical and safety standards create the predictable environment in which science can flourish and translate into societal benefit.   Ultimately, our aim with this proactive governance is to ensure that the expected affordances of quantum technology serve to benefit all of humankind. As quantum matures, we envision an integrated approach where these foundational standards are complemented by targeted, risk-based regulations.   University of Cambridge Harvard Law School TUM Think Tank Stanford University Mark Lemley Michael McFaul #quantumgovernance #standards #values #law #ethics #certification #regulation

Quantum Technology Governance This Open Access book, the first volume in a two-part series on quantum technology governance, provides a systematic examination of the legal and regulatory dimensions of quantum technologies, offering an original contribution to the emerging discourse on quantum governance. It distinguishes itself as one of the first comprehensive analyses to explore how quantum technologies intersect with existing legal frameworks, addressing the implications of quantum advancements for law, policy, and regulatory practice. The work examines how developments in quantum computing, cryptography, and sensing challenge established approaches to intellectual property, cybersecurity regulation, export controls, and public international law, while identifying pathways for adapting and strengthening existing governance structures. It highlights how the non-classical features of quantum technologies stress-test conventional legal doctrines and require interpretive flexibility, anticipatory policymaking, and evidence-based regulatory strategies rather than wholesale reform. Grounded in developments through 2025, the volume equips policymakers with analytical tools to navigate legal uncertainty, balance innovation with risk, and address regulatory gaps in areas such as cybersecurity and export controls, while fostering coordinated responses at national and international levels. The book equips scholars, policymakers, and practitioners with conceptual and practical insights to evaluate the evolving interplay between technological innovation, security, and legal order in the quantum era. With an interdisciplinary perspective, it advances understanding of how legal and regulatory systems can respond to the technical and governance challenges posed by quantum technologies.

Most quantum boardroom conversations end without an agenda. They end with a posture — "we're monitoring quantum developments," "we're taking it seriously". Neither statement produces a plan. The distinction matters because quantum creates three problem classes, each with a different urgency and a different cost of inaction. A generic posture misaddresses all three at once. The right response, for most leadership teams, has three parts. The first is to defend now. Post-quantum cryptography belongs on the enterprise risk agenda as a current priority. That means building visibility into cryptographic dependencies across the enterprise, identifying migration priorities, and mapping third-party exposure. This is the part of the quantum agenda that cannot wait. The second is to explore selectively. Most leadership teams do not need a wide portfolio of quantum pilots. They need a small number of focused efforts on high-value problems where the workload aligns with quantum's actual strengths — evaluated against the strongest available classical alternative. Each effort should be a targeted test: one specific problem, one clear classical benchmark, one honest evaluation. The third is to build options. For companies in simulation-relevant sectors — pharmaceuticals, advanced materials, energy — the right posture is modest investment in partnerships and early hardware collaborations. The goal is R&D workflows that are ready to integrate quantum subroutines when the technology matures. The companies that benefit most will not necessarily be those spending the most today. They will be the ones best positioned to move when the moment arrives. The most common failure on quantum is conflating the urgency of the three classes — treating all three as equally distant or equally immediate, when each has a different clock running. The organizations that get this right understand early which problem classes matter to their business, which ones to set aside, and what the distinction demands of them starting Monday morning. https://lnkd.in/gkymW7Xm

✏️ The World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2026 warns of the risk of a systemic collapse of digital trust should the threat posed by quantum computers to cryptography materialize. The report, published ahead of the Davos conference, examines, among others, the impact of quantum technologies in anticipation of future challenges. While adverse outcomes of frontier technologies, a category that includes quantum, do not rank highly in the surveys for either the 2-year or 10-year outlooks, this risk shows the fourth-largest increase in severity score among all 33 risks between these two time horizons. This clearly indicates that respondents’ concerns are rising over time. 👉 The report does not hesitate to describe the current situation as one of “cryptographic complacency”, noting that many organizations are lagging in their understanding of the potential impacts of quantum technologies—both positive and negative. 📢 According to the WEF, the ultimate risk of sudden, mass decryption and the breaking of authentication mechanisms would be a systemic collapse of digital trust. The societal implications could be profound, potentially triggering a mass shift away from digital channels for sensitive services such as banking and healthcare, resulting in major disruption and, perhaps ironically, a reversal of digital progress. 🏃♀️➡️ The report references calls to action from the G7 Cyber Expert Group and Europol Quantum Safe Financial Forum (QSFF), recommending the adoption of hybrid cryptographic solutions, the embrace of crypto-agility, and the immediate initiation of a quantum cyber-readiness journey through the development of a clear strategy and roadmap. It also sets out five guiding principles to support this journey: 1. Ensure that organizational governance structures institutionalize quantum risk 2. Raise quantum-risk awareness across the organization 3. Treat and prioritize quantum risk alongside existing cyber risks 4. Make strategic decisions regarding future technology adoption 5. Encourage collaboration across ecosystems A special mention to Filipe Beato, whose expertise I strongly suspect is behind the rigor and insight of the quantum-safety perspective in this report. Report: https://lnkd.in/eGuCnG8d

The global quantum computing race just shifted from theoretical physics to sovereign risk. If you sit on a Global 1000 board, direct national defense policy, or deploy tier-one capital, the era of quantum "hype" is officially over. Based on the latest 2025–2026 data, Israel has quietly engineered a highly coordinated "Two-Engine" quantum ecosystem designed for industrial integration and strategic resilience. Here is the executive snapshot of where the capital, the supply chain, and the geopolitics are colliding—and how boards must govern it: 🏗️ 1. The "Two-Engine" Architecture Israel is executing a ruthless, dual-pronged strategy: • Engine 1 (Sovereignty): Hyper-focused on defense superiority, post-quantum cryptography (PQC), and financial resilience. • Engine 2 (Market): Anchored by a massive concentration of multinational R&D centers securing the global supply chain. 💰 2. Strategic Capital Allocation Smart money is no longer trying to build the "race car" (the QPU); it is building the engine and the dashboard. • Public: The Israel National Quantum Initiative (INQI) is deploying a $390M budget. • Private: Capital is flooding the "enabling layers." Quantum Machines raised ~$280M to lead global control systems; Classiq secured massive Series C funding ($173M+) to dominate software synthesis. • Geopolitical: A proposed $200M US-Israel Quantum Fund is advancing for 2026–2030 to counter adversarial tech dominance. ⚓ 3. The Multi-National Anchors You cannot map this sovereign infrastructure without the silicon giants: • Nvidia: Driving the backbone of AI and quantum data center networking. • Intel: Leveraging its massive Kiryat Gat fabrication footprint. • AWS: Designing custom silicon that bleeds directly into quantum control logic. 🏦 4. The Regulatory Shockwave (Directive 364) In January 2025, the Bank of Israel issued Directive 364, requiring banks to map encryption dependencies and submit PQC preparedness plans within one year. This instantly shifted the industry from "theory" to mandatory board-level compliance. 🛡️ 5. The Governance Imperative: The GBAC QSI Overlay With tightening U.S. export controls, the goal is independent technological sovereignty. But how does a global enterprise govern this? Traditional frameworks (COSO, COBIT, ITIL) are failing at the quantum layer. To safely integrate these technologies, organizations must deploy the Quantum Strategic Intelligence (QSI) model. QSI acts as the overarching governance architecture—overlaying sovereign infrastructures like Israel’s—to protect the enterprise from the "Atom to the Algorithm." A question for my network: With central banks now mandating post-quantum preparedness plans, how is your board or agency mapping its cryptographic dependencies? Are you still relying on legacy models? Let's discuss below. 👇 Aviad Tamir, Nir Minerbi, Asif Sinay #QuantumComputing #CorporateGovernance #NationalSecurity #DeepTech #TechStrategy #Geopolitics #PostQuantumCryptography #GBAC #QSI

In collaboration with University of Oxford, Quantum Computing and Simulation Hub, and EY, we have published: “Towards Responsible Quantum Computing”. The white paper, co-authored by Dr Carolyn Ten Holter, Philip Inglesant, Marina Jirotka, and Mira Pijselman, offers insights into possible futures for quantum computing – both positive and negative – drawn from an expert survey conducted with academic, industry, and policymaking communities in the quantum ecosystem. The report underscores the urgency for collective action by stakeholders to set the groundwork for responsible quantum computing. If you hear me speak on #Quantum, I consistently address diversity and ethics. The Quantum community can learn from #AI and start its journey #now with #responsibleInnovation. As I wrote the forward with Piers C. and Mira, I continue to #advocate “…we can proactively shape the trajectory of quantum technologies and validate that they conform to our collective values and aspirations.”   Access the full white paper with the link below. Sofia Ihsan Harvey Lewis Eden Simkins, Maxine S. Nishobika Sivakumaran Joshua Day, CPA, CISA Rachel Mattoo Catriona Campbell MBE Laura Henchoz Tori Roberts Christopher Gallagher Mary Elizabeth Porray Hank Prybylski Jeff Wong Marcelo Bartholo Raj Sharma Linda Castaneda Paul Goodhew Paul Clark #quantum #quantumComputing #quantumEthics EY Saïd Business School, University of Oxford #leadership #ai #responsibility #ethics #dei #representationMatters https://lnkd.in/gqn2QUFh