The government wants to keep quantum computing out of the wrong hands, but at what cost to innovation and jobs?

In recent weeks the government unexpectedly amended legislation to ban UK companies from selling quantum computers with more than 34 qubits overseas, without a special licence.?

To put that in perspective, the 2nd gen computer created by Oxford Quantum Circuits is already a 32 qubit system.

This Export Control Order is meant to keep us safe from weaponisation of technology, but could it slow or stall the advancement of quantum technology?

The race is on to commercialise quantum computing and the UK technology industry is making real breakthroughs. The hardware once had to be kept at extremely low temperatures, making it impractical for most businesses, let alone mainstream use. Now British firms are making advances in some really exciting areas that bring real use cases one step closer.

Experts in the field agree there needs to be control on the export of Quantum hardware as it is a dual technology, but this should be in collaboration with the industry and opportunity for the UK government to be a strategic leader.?

Joe Spencer Quantum Scientist at Global Quantum Intelligence, LLC quotes; “Quantum is considered a strategic resource by Governments all over the globe, and we are seeing Export Control come into legislation, which makes sense for such dual-use technology. The UK needs to strategically position itself in the global ecosystem and form the right collaborations internationally? to ensure our great science and R&D roadmaps stay relevant”?

But if they can’t commercialise it, investment will dry up and quantum could return to being developed on an academic level.?

When the commercial viability of a technology is limited, it’s inevitable that some companies will put the brakes on investment and development of quantum hardware. Oxford Quantum Circuits are pioneering a quantum use case in Japanese data centres, and that could be threatened.?

What was, until this week, a global market for UK firms, is now much smaller.?

I think society needs this technology as soon as possible. The environmental impact of data and AI is huge, and as I’ve written in previous newsletters, quantum can solve that problem, with its immense capacity to handle more data, more quickly. It is helping us find solutions to complex systems like medicine and climate change. Security is a valid concern, but we need to be on this path and we cannot go slower.?

That’s not to say we should ignore the risks. Technology has never been advancing so quickly as it is today. AI is moving at a light speed and sensible governance is lagging behind. This year will be an acid test, with elections coming up.??

Quantum computing is an even more powerful technology and as a maker of hardware, once you export a product, your ability to control it diminishes. Some in the quantum sector are nervous about how it could be used in the wrong hands too. So we do need to be mindful of that and design the right regulation.?

Although some have said we are 20 years away from mainstream adoption, others believe we are already approaching the point where it can be commercialised.?

The reality is that this technology is here, and hitting the brakes feels short sighted to me, at the point where we need continued investment into government backed institutions to keep us ahead of the curve.?

Quantum computing will constantly evolve, there’s no winning the race and sitting back.?

David Shaw - Chief Analyst at Global Quantum Intelligence quotes; “Quantum computing is inherently both a dual-use technology and the potential anchor for a new breed of tech ecosystem. The US, EU and UK have already begun to act to control trade and collaboration in quantum technology markets. A key watch point for the coming intermediate era will be the geopolitical patterns of collaboration that develop and what real traction and results these drive.”

There are reports that investment in quantum has dipped recently possibly because the natural first spike of the hype cycle in any new tech has passed. Bear in mind that it only makes up a fraction of VC portfolios, less than 1%.?

I feel there’s another reason, having spoken to tech investors. Four or five years ago, prior to the explosion of generative AI, a lot of firms were allocating some investment in quantum. A more immediately exciting technology came along and investors see that quantum isn’t where mid term gains will be found.?

That reallocation of funds to maximise short and mid term gains has probably cost the quantum sector some funding, so the government’s announcement doesn’t come at the best time.?

That said, it would be a mistake to think there aren't big players pushing forward with quantum innovation. Google, IBM and other big tech firms are doing just that. This week, Google and XPRIZE announced a $5 million competition to find practical uses for quantum computers that benefit society .?

Who actually makes these breakthroughs may not seem important, but I think it is.?

If the investment dries up and only big corporates with deep pockets and very long horizons can keep going, smaller market players disappear or pivot to other areas, so we lose different types of innovation and creativity. The monopolies enjoyed by big tech get stronger.?

There’s a jobs angle too. Quantum is a global profession involving a very small pool of talent, and I am always excited about the potential for new tech to create jobs and STEM opportunities for young people. The barriers to becoming an expert in AI or even quantum are coming down, because of the frameworks and tools that support their development.

But if we hit the brakes too hard and we reduce the number of business in the sector, the attraction of becoming a quantum engineer will reduce too. Not everybody wants to join a big tech firm and be a number in a huge machine.

These are unprecedented times. Traditionally, when technology emerged, there was a period of time where the market needed to be convinced. That time allowed people to make the tech more robust and fit for purpose. Cloud computing appeared over 10 years ago but it has taken a while for risk averse institutions like banks to adopt it. Now cloud is seen as part of the furniture.

The difference between cloud and AI or quantum is that these new technologies are evolving much more quickly than anything we’ve seen before, and the stakes feel higher.

I recognise that tech innovation is a balancing act between risk - in this case security - and innovation. I’m somewhere in the middle of this debate. I accept there’s a risk to digital infrastructure and things like passwords. We have to be mindful of that and I have always been an advocate of sensible governance.?

At the same time, the UK is known throughout the world as an innovation hub and we have to keep embracing new technology, and keep our knowledge and skills on-shore. That’s why I am not convinced handcuffing smaller UK businesses is the right way to go.?