Quantum computing could spark a ‘renaissance of scientific discovery’

Edward Parker is a physical scientist at RAND, where his research focuses on the societal impact of emerging quantum technologies. Parker spoke to Apolitical’s Jess Sansom about his long-term view on the opportunities and risks policymakers should be thinking about in quantum computing. From groundbreaking advancements in science and medicine to profound challenges in cybersecurity, Parker stresses the critical role governments must play in funding research, fostering global collaboration and promoting cryptographic security.

Quantum impacts

Jess Sansom: You've been studying disruptive technologies for some time — how do you think quantum computing could impact governments?

Edward Parker: There are a few different levels. The most concrete is probably the fact that quantum computing may eventually pose a threat to cryptography, which would have a large impact on cybersecurity and national security — everything from online commerce to the security of classified information.

On the positive side, quantum computing will advance science, particularly at the level of chemistry and material science. That could mean alternate energy technologies, better batteries, more efficient electric grids, better solar panels and improved direct air capture technology (i.e. removing CO2 from the atmosphere).

But it’s also worth saying that most of the long-term impacts from this technology are just impossible to predict. Think back to the 1940s, as we were just beginning to develop ordinary computers. There was no way to imagine where we'd be 80 years later.

Sign up for a place on the next cohort.

Securing against risks

Sansom: What do you think government's role will be in helping quantum develop?

Parker: The most clear and direct role is funding basic research. Quantum computing is in an interesting phase of development where there's still a lot of open science — academia, universities, publicly-funded labs sharing data and being transparent about their work, even as private companies are performing more proprietary development. Governments could play a really important role by continuing to fund this open research.

Governments can also help convene global stakeholders. It's still a little early for standard-setting in quantum but I think it will become important fairly soon — policymakers can create the mechanisms for that collaboration.

Finally, I think government will play an important role in managing the risk quantum computing will pose to cryptography. For example, in 2022, the Biden administration issued a national security memorandum ordering federal departments to upgrade their cryptography systems so they can resist attacks from quantum computers by the year 2035. I think that will have positive effects on the economy more broadly and encourage private industry to invest in more secure forms of cryptography.

Standards, supply chains and skills

Sansom: Do you have any advice for policymakers on how to encourage greater global collaboration on quantum?

Parker: There are two areas where I think government can encourage greater collaboration. The first area, as I said, is promoting new cryptography systems which are secure against quantum hacks. This is especially important for global communications systems, where you need uniform standards everywhere but achieving interoperability is difficult. So governments can lead this process of standardisation.

The other area governments can lead is supply chains. The supply chains for quantum computers are extremely complex and no country has a monopoly on all the necessary components and materials. There is an opportunity for countries with shared political interests to work together to build stronger, more resilient and diversified supply chains.

I’d actually add one more area and that’s international talent. Quantum computing is an unusually collaborative field of scientific research — a lot of papers are co-authored by scientists from different nations. There is a lot of international talent working in the United States, for example, and I’m sure it’s the same in other countries. It would be helpful for policymakers to put some thought into helping to preserve that.

A renaissance of scientific discovery

Sansom: What is one hope you have for quantum?

Parker: It’s worth saying that, overall, I am optimistic about quantum computing. And I am optimistic that my hopes are more likely to be realised than my fears. So my biggest hope is that quantum computing can launch a renaissance of scientific discovery and really help jumpstart a range of commercially useful technologies that contribute to global economic growth. I mentioned the potential for climate and energy earlier, but I didn’t mention drug development and the impact on healthcare, which is another major potential impact area. Right now, a lot of scientific exploration is extremely slow and labour intensive. It requires lots of people manually combining different chemicals together. If we could replace that work with scientific simulation on quantum computers, it would just accelerate the process.

My biggest hope is that quantum computing can launch a renaissance of scientific discovery and really help jumpstart a range of commercially useful technologies that contribute to global economic growth.

An unexpected risk

Sansom: What about your fears?

My main fear, like I said, is the encryption issue. If quantum computing develops faster than the deployment of post-quantum cryptography, we could see extreme disruption to virtually all aspects of the internet. Imagine a world where email is no longer secure; where bad actors can intercept financial transactions, sensitive business communications, trade secrets or personal health information. I think it’s unlikely because people are taking the appropriate precautions and rolling out defence mechanisms, but not impossible.

Another fear I have – a very different one — is a lack of investment. Realistically, we could be talking 10, 15, maybe even 20 years of sustained R&D before the most powerful quantum computers become ready; there’s a lot of research and very challenging engineering ahead. My fear is that commercial investors lose interest because they are not taking an appropriate long-term perspective.

Sansom: How should policymakers think about that potential timeline for development?

Edward Parker: It's a marathon, not a sprint. I think the timelines until we realise the potential value are perhaps longer than a lot of people expect. Quantum computing is an unusual case of a dual-use technology. There are lots of fairly uncertain benefits and one very concrete risk (i.e. encryption). Policymakers should bear both the upside and downside in mind without fixating on one or the other.

This interview is part of a series of expert perspectives on key quantum computing issues for policymakers. Learn about quantum computing in more depth, register for a place on upcoming cohorts of our course: Quantum Computing: Understanding the Technology and its Implications, developed collaboration with Google Quantum AI.