Researchers say quantum technologies are currently more likely to be more likely than the rules.

How can quantum technologies be developed responsibly? In the journal ScienceResearchers at the Technical University of Munich (TUM), the University of Cambridge, Harvard University and Stanford University argue that international standards should be established before enforcing rules.

Professor Ars Gaser has explained why the authors propose quality management system for quantum technologies, how standards create confidence, and wherever competitive countries like China and the United States can cooperate.

Quantum technologies can have far more disrupting effects than artificial intelligence. This is the reason why unlike AI, there are increasing calls to advance technological development in a socially responsible direction through legislation. Why do you see things differently?

We are not primarily opposed to the legal regulation. In the latter phase, when the applications for quantum technologies can be predicted more clearly, lawmakers want to draw red lines for especially high -risk requests. However, in the current initial development phase, we believe that a different approach to achieving goals such as security, mutual cooperation, transparency and accountability is more promising: the creation of international technology standards on which legislation can be based. In other words: first standard.

It seems that we want to get grip with the most complex technology of history using DIN standards.

Especially because the technology is so complex, so technical standards should come first. This matter becomes clear in the case of AI regulation in Europe, where the opposite was adopted: Now we have a European Union process, but in the coming years, standards will need to be developed with fever so that to understand what the rules mean and compliance. This can create a significant legal uncertainty and put pressure on the climate of innovation at an important moment.

Are there any examples of successful standardization of complex technologies?

Many technologies have been guided by standards that can be founded on the basis of the code. For example, the International Organization for Standardment (ISO) has created the required standards for information security, which are important to companies in all industries – and thus for its customers in the protection of sensitive data in the digital digital era.

The International Electro Technical Commission (IEC) has established safety requirements for medical electrical devices to ensure the safety of patients and consumers. And the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has set a technical base with the standard of wireless networks for Wi -Fi, which enables different manufacturers to interact with each other without interruption. Similarly, we can now explain protocols, interfaces and numerous technical explanations for quantum technologies.

What standard work is already underway and what should be done now?

A wide range of standardization at international and national levels is already underway. For example, the ISO and IEC set up a Joint Technical Committee 3 (JTC 3) in the early 2024 to develop basic standards for quantum computing, quantum communication and related areas. IEEE, US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) are also working on later quantum cryptography, mutual cooperation, security and performance benchmark standards.

Highlighting this, our proposal recommends the introduction of the Quality Management System (QMS) for the Quantum Technologies. This will not only take into account the technical aspects, such as stability and security, but will also integrate legal, morally and socially related aspects in development and process. It will not be an individual product that is certified, but the company’s management system is in accordance with the current practice in Medical Medical Technology. Such certificates can be released by free, approved bodies such as TüV, once a standard is defined. This will create a reliable framework that ensures quality, transparency and accountability.

Given the technical and economic competition, is it realistic to expect an international agreement on such a system?

Standards also facilitate international cooperation, even where there is a lack of political cooperation – for example, between China, the United States and Europe. In committees such as ISO, IEC and IEEE, experts create global recognized rules that build trust in new technologies and provide companies for their investment. In addition, these soft laws are more flexible than traditional laws as they can be adapted to the technical progress immediately, thus helping innovation without losing risks.

Is this not a very technical process that lacks democratic legal status?

The standard sequence is certainly not a classic democratic process, such as parliamentary legislation. However, this is not a closed expert system. International standard organizations often combine various stakeholders, including companies, civil society groups, research institutes and public officials. In national committees that help to create international work, different interest groups are often more closely involved.

In addition, many standards today have been developed not only to solve technical issues, but also to keep in mind the moral, social and legal aspects, for example, in areas such as data protection, security or participation. Social values, risks and rights are an integral part of the standards of the quality management system.

At the same time, justification is criticism. Some of the standard works dominate economically powerful actors, and the social point of view is not equally represented. These shortcomings are famous and are focusing on it rapidly – for example, in the current debates about the development of AI standards in Europe, where a conscious effort is being made to consider more of the basic issues of civil society and basic rights.

It is important to note that standards do not replace political rules. On the contrary, they can set up and a harmonious foundation before. The actual code of conduct is the job of democratic institutions, which set the legally bound framework on this basis according to national context and social debates.