Responsible quantum computing must begin with education

Winning submission to the inaugural Joel Tendler Scholarship, sponsored by EeroQ

Harnessing the power of quantum computing for societal good is a difficult problem, but the challenge is not a lack of ideas. Already, a rich tradition of scholarship has illuminated numerous facets of quantum ethics [1], from privacy and cybersecurity [2, 3] to media hype [4, 5], equitable distribution of benefits [6, 7, 8, 9], sustainability [10, 11], public understandability [6, 12], democratization and access [13], and the moral risks of dual-use technologies and “quantum nationalism” [14, 15]. Kop et al. have developed 10 principles for responsible development of quantum technologies [16], while several nations – notably the UK, Netherlands, and ASEAN countries – have centered quantum ethics in national or regional quantum computing strategies. We have no shortage of minds pondering how to leverage quantum computing for public good; the risk is that we sequester this work in academic journals and underfunded grassroots organizations while engineers and scientists continue “business as usual.”

The failure of the scholarly tradition of AI ethics – underscored by global unpreparedness for ChatGPT – offers a cautionary tale. Retrospective critiques of AI ethics (e.g. [17, 18]) have identified two primary flaws: first, an emphasis on heady and ultimately toothless ethical principles (vs. the actionable tenets of data justice [19]) and second, that AI ethics knowledge failed to penetrate professional tech culture. Both are ultimately failures of the education system – to ground AI ethicists in the real world rather than abstract philosophy, and to train scientists and engineers to see their work as inextricably connected to society.

Accordingly, the single most important step toward leveraging quantum computing for good is an intentional restructuring of global quantum education to cultivate a culture of social responsibility and interdisciplinary dialog within the nascent field of quantum information science and engineering (QISE). QISE education must follow the path not of physics and computer science (training technical experts to “shut up and calculate”) but of information science (fostering well-rounded individuals across both technical and social aspects of computing). Borrowing from the data justice tradition of speculative design [20] – that meaningful social change requires looking beyond (but only just beyond!) the realm of what seems possible – I conclude this essay with four tangible, if challenging, recommendations for emerging QISE degree programs to make holistic QISE education a reality and reshape the culture of the discipline.

First, every student pursuing a technical QISE degree must take a dedicated quantum ethics course, ideally in their first two years of study. Such a course should be taught by an expert in the field of quantum computing ethics, if one is available, and its effectiveness benchmarked with research-based tools (e.g. [21]). This course should be followed by a follow-up course later in the student’s career enabling a deep dive into a social issue of importance to the student, such as quantum and sustainability, quantum and public health, quantum humanities [22], even quantum and art [23] – anything that breaks the stereotype of the quantum scientist as disconnected from society.

Second, ethics must be integrated throughout every quantum computing course a student takes. Compartmentalized ethics education in a single course does not work [24]. Even a 15 minute discussion on the societal implications of an algorithm, a few times per semester, fosters a professional norm of not divorcing technical science from society. Curricular materials for such discussions are readily available [25].

Third, quantum computing students should be incentivized to consider issues of quantum ethics in their research. As preliminary experience at one US institution seems to be showing [26], even a modest stipend of $1000 with a supportive mentor is sufficient to motivate technical QISE graduate students to pursue a side project in quantum ethics to publication.

Finally, QISE programs must include non-technical and hybrid technical/non-technical paths to cater to students of diverse career interests. As quantum computing matures, demand will grow for “quantum-aware” non-technical workers in fields such as marketing, policy, and business [27]. Students pursuing these careers should be integrated with technical QISE students through social activities, shared coursework, and colloquia. Such integration will foster a culture where the quantum computing technical workforce sees its work as inextricably tied to society, and where ethicists are not siloed in the ivory tower.

These recommendations will prove challenging, but the window of opportunity is now. Dedicated QISE degree programs are just beginning to proliferate [27], and the goals and content of QISE curricula have yet to solidify [28]. Absent intervention, QISE education will follow in the trend of its progenitor disciplines and serve to perpetuate a socially disconnected workforce. But with careful action, we can learn from the mistakes of AI ethics and embed a self-reinforcing culture of responsibility into the quantum computing workforce through education. We already know how to leverage quantum computing for good – the challenge is just to ensure this knowledge enters the ears of those positioned to apply it!

[1] L. Possati. Phil. & Technol. 36, 48 (2023).
[2] R. de Wolf. Ethics Inf. Technol. 19, 271-276 (2017).
[3] V. Krishnamurthy. Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 044003 (2022).
[4] O. Ezratty. Mitigating the quantum hype (2022) arXiv: 2202.01925.
[5] J. Meyer, S. Pollock, B. Wilcox, G. Passante. Phys. Teach. 61, 339-342 (2023).
[6] Quantum technologies public dialogue report. UK Research & Innovation (2018).
[7] C. Ten Holter et al. Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 044006 (2022).
[8] J. Meyer, G. Passante, and B. Wilcox. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010131 (2024).
[9] A. Gercek and Z. Seskir (2024). arXiv: 2403.08033.
[10] A. Auffèves. PRX Quantum 3, 020101 (2022).
[11] D. Jaschke and S. Montangero. Quantum Sci. Technol. 8, 025001 (2023).
[12] A. Meinsma et al. Quantum Sci. Technol. 8, 035004 (2023).
[13] Z. Seskir et al. Quantum Sci. Technol. 8, 024005 (2023).
[14] E. McKay (2022). arXiv: 2203.01415.
[15] A. Lele. Quantum technologies and military strategy. Cham: SN Switzerland (2021).
[16] M. Kop et al. 10 principles for responsible quantum innovation. Stanford Law (2024).
[17] A. Kaspersen and W. Wallach. Carnegie Council for Ethics in Int. Affairs (2021).
[18] L. Munn. AI and Ethics 3, 869-877 (2023).
[19] L. Dencik et al. Data justice. London: SAGE Publications, 2022.
[20] K. Johannessen. The young designer’s guide to critical and speculative design. (2017).
[21] J. Borenstein et al. Sci. Eng. Ethics 16, 387-407 (2009).
[22] A. Bötticher, Z. Seskir, and J. Ruhland (2023). arXiv: 2303.05457.
[23] IBM Zurich. Quantum Blur. IBM Research (2024).
[24] M. Drake, P. Griffin, R. Kirkman, and J. Swann. J. Eng. Educ. 94 (2005), 223–231.
[25] J. Arrow, S. Marsh, and J. Meyer. Proc. IEEE Conf. Quantum Comput. Eng. (2023).
[26] Manuscript in preparation.
[27] C. Aiello et al. Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 030501 (2021).
[28] J. Meyer, G. Passante, S. Pollock, and B. Wilcox. Phys. Rev. PER 18, 010150 (2022).