Conference Agenda

As a critical technology area, quantum technologies (QT) are shaped by competitive innovation dynamics, where the race to lead often comes at the expense of collaboration and transparency (World Economic Forum, 2022). These dynamics influence not only the trajectory and pace of innovation, but also determine who benefits from advancements and who risks being excluded (World Economic Forum, 2022). Technological governance must account for these broader developments to assess and anticipate QT’s ethical challenges (Coenen et al., 2022).

Responsible Innovation (RI) and Design for Values (DfV) are two approaches that aim to integrate ethical and societal values into technological development (Stilgoe et al., 2013; van den Hoven et al., 2015). While both frameworks offer valuable tools, they have been critiqued for their limitations in addressing the socio-technical complexities of emerging technologies. RI has faced criticism for its insufficient engagement with the political and economic systems that shape innovation, thereby overlooking the fundamental role of power structures (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; van Oudheusden, 2014). Similarly, value-sensitive approaches, such as DfV, have been deemed too narrow in scope, focusing primarily on abstract values without addressing the broader socio-political context in which technologies are developed and deployed (Hagendorff, 2021; Resseguier & Rodrigues, 2020). These critiques underscore the need to explore other normative frameworks that can address the ethical challenges posed by QT’s socio-political landscape.

Relational ethics has emerged as an alternative, and potentially complementary, paradigm for tackling the ethical dimensions of emerging technologies (Albertson et al., 2021; Birhane, 2021; Hagendorff, 2021; Hollanek, 2024; Pavlovic & Hafner Fink, 2023; Szymanski et al., 2021). This approach emphasizes principles such as interdependence, power dynamics, responsiveness, and contextuality, all of which appear relevant for engaging with the socio-technical complexities of QT’s innovation dynamics.

These principles have gained traction in AI ethics, for instance, where value-driven approaches have struggled to address similarly competitive and fast-paced innovation dynamics (Birhane, 2021; Hagendorff, 2021; Hollanek, 2024; Pavlovic & Hafner Fink, 2023). In this context, researchers argue that relational ethics may offer a more holistic lens to evaluate and address the ethical implications of AI, notably by recognizing the interconnectedness of actors and the shifting power dynamics that shape innovation outcomes. Meanwhile, researchers in RI have argued that insights from relational ethics could help bridge existing gaps in current frameworks, providing a more nuanced and contextual approach to governance (Albertson et al., 2021; Szymanski et al., 2021).

Building on these arguments, this research investigates whether the principles of relationality can address the shortcomings of RI and DfV, particularly in the context of QT. To this end, it explores how relational ethics may offer a normative foundation for ethical governance by accounting for the socio-technical complexities and competitive pressures of QT innovation.

As quantum technologies (QT) advance, their growing importance in societal, technological, and geopolitical discussions has led to critical debates about their responsible development and deployment. These technologies have the potential to transform multiple sectors but simultaneously raise pressing ethical, legal, and social questions. Key concerns include their potential to widen the digital divide both between countries and within societies, the implications of QT for global governance, and their role in reshaping geopolitical realities. In response to these emerging challenges, an increasing number of organizations, institutions, and collaborative efforts worldwide have begun to establish ethical, legal, and social aspects (ELSA) frameworks and governance structures designed to ensure the responsible advancement of QT. These initiatives not only reflect the international recognition of QT's transformative potential but also signify the efforts to navigate its associated risks.

This talk explores the evolving global infrastructure surrounding responsible QT, focusing on different models and approaches that have been introduced to the literature. Through case studies and analysis of organizational efforts, the presentation will also examine the reception of these frameworks by stakeholders, including governments, research institutions, and the broader public. Furthermore, the talk will delve into how efforts in QT governance are influenced by broader technological shifts, particularly the rise of responsible artificial intelligence (AI). The sudden proliferation of generative AI technologies like ChatGPT has prompted intensified discussions about ethical technology development. By conducting bibliometric analysis and literature reviews, this presentation highlights how the responsible AI discourse intersects with and shapes the evolution of responsible QT frameworks.

Ultimately, this talk emphasizes the necessity of interdisciplinary collaboration and global cooperation to build effective infrastructures for responsible quantum technologies. It will advocate for a comprehensive understanding of how ethical frameworks can anticipate technological advancements and proactively address the potential societal implications of cutting-edge innovations like QT.

Since the Quantum Internet (QI) is anticipated to introduce new security-related capabilities, it may directly affect national security interests and expectations. Such expectations are pertinent factors in security dilemmas and thus are important to study for our understanding of the broader ecosystem that supports the emergence of QI. Literature on emerging technologies identify five key attributes: (i) radical novelty, (ii) relatively rapid growth, (iii) coherence in its foundational principles, (iv) significant potential impact, and (v) inherent uncertainty and ambiguity. Due to their novelty, impact, growth, and uncertainty, such technologies are particularly vulnerable to be captured by hype. In the context of QI, I argue that hype discourses about QI capabilities could trigger an early-stage security dilemma and thus tying this technology more precisely to national security issues.

Security dilemmas are said to occur between states that can interpret one another’s behavior as potentially offensive. Due to the ambiguity and opacity of state actions, and the considerations of worst-case scenarios important for state survival, the interpretation of other state’s decisions can create cycles of response in terms of offensive measures. Relating this to QI, the expected advancements in this field relating specifically to cryptographic improvements could be interpreted as a potential threat in which responses lead to competitive escalation amongst states. Based on this theoretical understanding of possible relations on an international scale regarding QI, I aim to draw two key insights: first that the security dilemma can already manifest in the realm of social expectation and consequently influence developmental trajectories, and second that hype cycles can have a broader range of effects that extend beyond economic investment and public orientation.

I situate this study through an analysis of quantum strategy documents of the European Union. It follows from this analysis that certain capabilities of QI are emphasized that align more explicitly with national security interests then other potential capabilities of said technologies. However, I additionally explain how state dynamics through QI-involved security dilemma can mainly be indicated through such an analysis, but that different approaches to strategic technological development do not avoid such dilemmas altogether. To avoid distrust and escalation additional auxiliary institutional trajectories are required and thus need to be sought out, potentially including QI.