1 Introduction

Quantum Technologies (QTs), once the domain of theoretical physics, are now at the forefront of a technological revolution, catalyzing novel developments in sectors from healthcare to banking (Coussens et al., 2021; Faccia, 2020; van Weerd & Lassche, 2021). With the rapid advancements and vast potential QTs offer, they are considered to have the potential to reshape the foundations of our global economy (Acín et al., 2018; Afifi-Sabet, 2023; Aslam et al., 2023; Deutsch, 2020). The global race to harness the power of QTs has led to an array of national initiatives and policy frameworks, each aiming to position their respective countries at the cutting edge of this technological revolution (Kung & Fance, 2021).

Given the potentially disruptive nature of QTs, capable quantum governance frameworks are considered critical to navigate legal complexities, uphold ethical norms, and manage risks (Perrier, 2022b). In fact, such frameworks have, in many countries, already been adopted (Australian Government Department of Industry, Science and Resources, 2023; Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Division Quantum Systems; Postdigital Computers, 2018; National Strategic Overview for Quantum Information Science, 2018). Yet, given the early and speculative stage of many QTs, governance suffers from the temporal dilemma as classically outlined by Collingridge in 1982, i.e., while the exertion of influence over emerging technologies is comparably easy, not much is known about their actual effects once implemented. By the time the broader consequences of new technologies become clear, they tend to already be entrenched to such a degree that regulation becomes challenging. Thus, there is a tension at this stage of technological development between allowing for unimpeded innovation and guiding technological development through governmental intervention. Techno libertarians advocate for minimal regulatory intervention, allowing technology to develop freely without government interference. In contrast, others are more cautious, emphasizing the need for oversight in technological development.

In the context of QTs, there is a strong emphasis within government actions on funding development, accelerating research, and expanding infrastructure (Kung & Fance, 2021). However, there is a concern among scholars that those efforts overlook concerns related to security, privacy, and societal impact. This trend is evident in the literature on QT governance, where scholars have raised concerns about a potential quantum arms race, military applications, and the widening economic disparity that may result from unequal access to QTs (Coenen et al., 2022; Coenen & Grunwald, 2017; Kop et al., 2023a2023b; Perrier, 2022a; Roberson, 2023; Roberson et al., 2021; Seskir et al., 2023; Ten Holter et al., 2023). These considerations lead to two critical questions: (1) How do national governance frameworks align with or diverge from the concerns raised by experts? (2) What are the implications of this divergence for the future governance of QTs?

This article addresses these questions by comparing the insights from current governance frameworks with those from experts in the field of QT. Experts, with their deep understanding of the field’s status and potential, offer valuable perspectives on what is crucial for the technology’s development. Furthermore, the article examines these questions through the lens of Innovation theory, specifically focusing on Permissionless and Responsible Innovation, to explore the potential discrepancies between governance frameworks and expert viewpoints. The analysis reveals that while both experts and governance frameworks prioritize technological development, there is a notable disparity in the emphasis placed on addressing potential threats, particularly regarding security and ethical concerns.

By engaging with these questions, this article contributes to the ongoing debate on the role of governance in shaping the trajectory of QTs. It argues that a balanced approach that combines the drive for innovation with a commitment to responsibility is essential for realizing the full potential of QTs while safeguarding against their potential risks. The following sections will engage the theoretical foundations of this debate, review the current state of quantum governance, and propose pathways for aligning national policies with the principles of Responsible Innovation.

2 Governance of Emerging Technologies

Governance, as seminally defined by Rhodes (1996, 1997), should be understood as a multifaceted concept that has evolved to signify various processes of governing beyond traditional state-centric models. Generally speaking, it refers to shifting increasingly complex and flexibilized ways of governing, moving from hierarchical structures to more decentralized, network-based forms of organization. In doing so, Rhodes highlights the importance of networks, characterized by interdependence between organizations across public, private, and voluntary sectors. Notably, governance implies a degree of autonomy from the state, with networks often operating outside direct state control, although the state may still attempt to steer them indirectly. Such an understanding of government blurs the distinction between state and civil society, making the state a collection of inter-organizational networks rather than a singular sovereign entity. As Rhodes (2007) later added, a proper understanding of governance processes, by definition, requires theoretical and empirical contextualization within various domains.

However, others such as Pierre (2005) and Pierre and Peters (2020) have challenged the notion of state decline, arguing that these transformations may enhance, rather than weaken, state authority. They view governance as a process that could reshape the state’s role, suggesting that rather than eroding power, the rise of governance reflects a transformation in how the state engages with civil society, fostering new forms of control and influence. Understanding governance thus requires an appreciation of these evolving dynamics and the tension between state authority and the decentralized nature of governance networks.

In this context, incorporating diverse voices, such as civil society and technical experts, becomes crucial for navigating the complexities of modern governance. The multifaceted challenges of contemporary policymaking require collaboration across sectors and knowledge bases. Collaborative governance, as emphasized by Emerson et al. (2012), ensures more inclusive and effective decision-making by drawing on a broad range of perspectives and expertise. Fung (2006) further supports this by arguing that governance is most effective when it integrates stakeholders, combining the technical knowledge of experts with the democratic input of civil society. This complementary approach can enhance legitimacy, justice, and effectiveness in governance structures.

This paper will focus on the governance of QTs, a field that presents unique regulatory challenges requiring both specialized input from technical experts and broader societal engagement. Traditional governance models may fall short due to the complexity and rapid evolution of these technologies. By examining the perspectives of technical experts alongside current national QT governance efforts, this paper will assess the adequacy of existing frameworks and propose more inclusive, adaptive mechanisms tailored to the specific demands of QTs.

This research focus’ on national QT governance, currently the most prevalent form of formal regulation, as it holds more direct legislative power than international frameworks and plays a key role in shaping the regulatory landscape. As QTs rapidly outpace existing regulations, the need for adaptive governance strategies becomes increasingly critical. The following section applies innovation governance theory to propose dynamic solutions to the evolving challenges of QTs.

2.1 Innovation Governance

The four primary approaches to governance in innovation governance theory as outlined by Hemphill (2020) are the Precautionary Principle (PP), Responsible Innovation (RI), Permissionless Innovation (PI), and the Innovation Principle (IP). These governance approaches are particularly relevant for QTs because they provide frameworks to balance innovation with ethical considerations, risk management, and societal impact. Integrating insights from these approaches can guide the creation of a governance framework that not only anticipates potential risks but also encourages a responsible exploration of new technological possibilities.

The Precautionary Principle (PP) was a foundational approach in innovation governance around the turn of the 20th century (Hemphill, 2020). It emphasizes the need for precautionary measures when an activity can potentially lead to morally unacceptable harm that is plausible yet scientifically uncertain. This is especially important when there is a risk of irreversible damage, as it places the responsibility on those conducting the activity (Van Der Sluijs et al., 2005). Despite its protective intent, some argue that the PP may hinder technological innovation by preemptively restricting technologies that also offer significant benefits, thus potentially stifling beneficial innovations due to hypothetical risks (Sunstein, 2002).

As with any approach, there are opposing opinions; one such counter-approach is Permissionless Innovation (PI). PI advocates for minimizing regulatory barriers to innovation, allowing for experimentation with new technologies unless there is a compelling case for potential serious harm. It shifts the responsibility away from innovators, suggesting that regulatory interventions should be evidence-based and responsive rather than anticipatory (Thierer, 2016). This approach closely mirrors the prevalent ‘move fast and break things’ ethos in Silicon Valley and other technical communities. Critics of this approach, however, highlight its potential to overlook the unintended consequences of rapid technological deployment, suggesting that it could lead to governance gaps where regulatory responses lag behind technological advancements (Goldfus, 2018). This concern has materialized in rapidly developing and transformative technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and may soon become relevant in other emerging fields, such as QTs (De Saint Laurent and Glaveanu, 2023).

The Innovation Principle (IP) also emerged as a response to balance the protective intent of the PP with the need to foster innovation. The IP calls for assessing the impact on innovation as a crucial element of regulatory decision-making. This principle aims to ensure that regulations do not inadvertently hinder technological progress, promoting a governance model that is both evidence-based and proportionate (Hemphill, 2020). However, the IP has faced criticism for potentially undermining environmental and health protections, with some stakeholders arguing that it prioritizes economic interests over public welfare (The Greens/EFA in the European Parliament, 2018).

In contrast to the PP and IP, Responsible Innovation (RI) emphasizes a proactive engagement with the future, advocating for governance that incorporates ethical considerations into the innovation process itself (Owen et al., 2013). This approach, which gained prominence through European research policy frameworks, defines RI as a transparent, interactive process where societal actors and innovators mutually respond to enhance innovations’ ethical acceptability, sustainability, and societal desirability (Hemphill, 2020). RI is characterized by its four dimensions — anticipation, reflectiveness, inclusive deliberation, and responsiveness — guiding the governance process to ensure that innovations align with societal values and long-term sustainability goals (Owen et al., 2013). RI is one of the most commonly advocated principles in current QT governance literature (Inglesant et al., 2021; Kop, 2021; Kop et al., 2023a, 2023b; Perrier, 2022b; Roberson, 2023; Ten Holter et al., 2022, 2023).

The governance of innovation remains a contested field, reflecting the complex interplay between risk management and the promotion of innovation. Each governance model presents its own set of advantages and challenges, reflecting deeper philosophical and practical disagreements about how best to integrate new technologies into society. This ongoing debate highlights the need to carefully consider which strategies are best suited for different aspects of the technology being governed. This is particularly important when it comes to technologies that have the potential to advance rapidly and have major impacts, such as QTs.

Accordingly, this paper examines the current landscape of QT governance, juxtaposing the national QT governance frameworks and the perspectives of experts developing and utilizing QTs. By doing so, we aim to shed light on the consensus between expert perspectives and current QT frameworks, as well as gaps in current regulatory attempts. We will furthermore analyze the results through the lens of innovation governance theory to determine which theory is most appropriate and whether there exists consensus on how to govern such technologies. As the chosen governance approach will influence the direction and success of technological innovations, it is crucial to select a model that aligns with the specific needs and challenges of QTs. This paper’s exploration into these models is intended to contribute to a deeper understanding of how best to govern such dynamic and potentially transformative technologies.

2.2 Current QT Governance Literature

QT governance is emerging as a niche field of study but a critical interdisciplinary field to navigate the interplay between technological innovation and regulatory intervention. The core of QT governance literature is grounded in general governance research, which establishes the foundational principles applicable to QTs. Key studies such as “The Quantum Governance Stack” (Perrier, 2022b) provide theoretical and practical underpinnings that are vital for any comprehensive governance strategy. These foundational works help define the scope and potential of QT governance frameworks, setting the stage for more specialized inquiries into ethical, legal, and policy-oriented challenges (Johnson, 2019; De Jong, 2022; Perrier, 2022b).

Building on these general principles, the next body of literature focuses on RI, emphasizing the ethical, societal, and environmental considerations of QT development. This research advocates for aligning technological progress with the public good, ensuring that innovations proceed with due consideration for their broader impacts. Such studies typically champion a governance approach that integrates societal needs from the outset rather than as an afterthought, fostering a harmonious integration of new technologies into society. This subset of QT governance literature is growing and reflects a rising emphasis on a RI governance mindset to guide these efforts (Coenen et al., 2022; Coenen & Grunwald, 2017; Kop et al., 2023a, 2023b; Perrier, 2022a; Roberson, 2023; Roberson et al., 2021; Seskir et al., 2023; Ten Holter et al., 2023).

Parallel to ethical considerations are the challenges presented by the legal frameworks governing QT. This segment of the literature deals with regulatory and legislative issues, from intellectual property rights to privacy concerns, which arise with the advent of QTs. It assesses the adequacy of current laws and explores necessary legal adaptations to safely incorporate these advanced technologies into daily life, ensuring legal compliance while fostering innovation (Kop, 20212023; Krishnamurthy, 2022).

A further dimension of QT governance research is represented by national initiative reports, which scrutinize how various countries formulate and implement their QT governance strategies. These analyses provide valuable insights into different governmental approaches to QT, revealing a spectrum of strategies, policies, and regulatory frameworks designed to capitalize on the benefits of QTs while mitigating associated risks. Such comparative studies are crucial for understanding the global landscape of QT governance and for identifying current predominant practices that can be adapted and adopted by other nations (Knight & Walmsley, 2019; Kung & Fance, 2021; Raymer & Monroe, 2019).

The final category of literature addresses the national and international security implications of QTs. With the potential to revolutionize everything from cryptography to warfare, the security aspects of QTs are critically examined to propose governance measures that can address these profound implications. This research is pivotal in shaping security policies that both leverage the strengths and address the vulnerabilities introduced by QTs, aiming to maintain national security and international stability (Grobman, 2023; Lindsay, 2018; Rosch-Grace & Straub, 2021; Smith, 2020; van Weerd & Lassche, 2021).

Despite the growing body of research, there remains a significant gap between the literature on theoretical governance frameworks and current governance actions. While the literature provides necessary considerations to the various responsibilities and approaches to QT governance, there is a need to examine the theory against what is implemented in national governance frameworks to identify where current regulatory efforts might be lacking. To address this gap, this paper focuses on the perspectives in the technical quantum community and the priorities in national governance policies and examine this against innovation theory and the call within the literature for a RI governance mindset. By looking at the technical expert insights and national governance frameworks, we will gain an understanding of both the developers’ perspectives and the priorities in current approaches to governance. This analysis will identify gaps in existing governance frameworks and suggest ways to support the development of QTs. This approach promises to not only advance the theoretical discourse but also provide a pragmatic guide for policymakers, developers, and other stakeholders engaged in the field of QT.

2.3 National QT Frameworks

Globally, a select few countries have fully developed national QT strategies. Others have expressed their intentions through mission statements and public declarations, set goals, or initiated funding for quantum initiatives as a preliminary step toward QT governance frameworks. Kung and Fance’s report on global policies and strategies for QTs provides a comprehensive overview from 2021, detailing the varying levels of governance efforts of QT across the world. Major players with established national QT strategies include China, the U.S., the U.K., and the Netherlands. Moreover, numerous countries have expressed commitments or set goals in this domain. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the levels of strategy development and each country’s position in this context (Kung & Fance, 2021).

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Depiction of the levels of strategy development and different countries’ QT positions. Reprinted from “A quantum revolution: Report on global policies for quantum technology.” (Kung & Fance, 2021)

Full size image

The QT governance landscape is evolving swiftly. Since this report’s release, an increasing number of countries have established QT strategies and initiatives. In the past two years, Canada and Australia released their national QT strategies, and Denmark introduced the first part in a series of strategies (Australian Government Department of Industry, Science and Resources, 2023; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, 2022; The Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2023). These developments highlight the expanding global engagement in this field and the current active development of national QT governance frameworks.

3 Methodology

To compare expert opinions with governance frameworks for QT, this study was conducted in three steps. The first step involved interviewing experts in QT to gather their views on QT development, including potential opportunities, threats, and recommended policy approaches. These insights were analyzed to identify key themes and concerns. In the second step, these themes were identified within national QT governance frameworks. Finally, a comparison was made to assess alignment and divergence, particularly in the areas of security, ethics, and societal impact. The following sections will detail each research step more closely, discussing the interview procedures, data analysis methods, selection and recruitment of participants, and the thematic analysis of national frameworks.

3.1 Expert Interviews

3.1.1 Interview Procedure

The semi-structured interviews were conducted in-person or via video conferencing and covered information on participant demographics and participant’s opinions on the future of QT development, perceived opportunities and threats, and suggestions for policy approaches. The full interview guideline can be found in the Appendix.

3.1.2 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Data processing included transcription, anonymization, and deletion of recordings to ensure confidentiality. An inductive-deductive coding strategy guided the thematic analysis, applying predefined themes deductively while allowing new themes to emerge inductively, following Braun and Clarke (2006). Three researchers iteratively developed the codebook, initially coding key aspects such as QT technologies, stakeholders, relevant fields, and the opportunities, benefits, threats, and challenges of QTs. After deductive coding of the main categories, one researcher performed inductive coding to identify frequently mentioned topics. The codebook was then reviewed and refined in collaboration with the other authors. The complete codebook is provided in Table 1. These themes informed the thematic analysis of national frameworks. Coding was performed using MAXQDA.

Table 1 Codebook applied for the analysis of the interview data
Full size table

3.1.3 Selection and Recruitment of Participants

Selection criteria for the experts required professional experience with QT within academic or industrial spheres, which was verified prior to contacting the experts via platforms such as Google Scholar and LinkedIn. This strategy helped to successfully identify and target participants with relevant expertise.

3.1.4 Sample

The study included ten experts—three women and seven men—with an average of 9.25 years of QT-related experience. Six held doctoral degrees and four master’s degrees. The experts brought specialized knowledge across various QT domains, including governance and commercial applications. Many were active in research, either in academia or industry, while others focused on governance, serving as advisors in various contexts. Some had experience from an end-user perspective; others concentrated on commercial aspects. Table 2 lists anonymized expert profiles with randomized aliases, and Table 3 summarizes their areas of expertise.

Table 2 Demographics of QT interview participants
Full size table
Table 3 Aggregated areas of expertise of QT interview participants
Full size table

Although the sample size was small, it was sufficient to capture the community’s prevailing views on key threats, benefits, and considerations. Thematic saturation was reached, indicating no significant new ideas were emerging. This sample size is consistent with qualitative research best practices (Baker & Edwards, 2017).

3.1.5 Ethical Considerations

The interview study was approved by our institution’s ethics board and followed established ethical guidelines for psychological research involving humans (American Psychological Association, 2016). Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, data collection, and processing in an informed consent before the interview. They could refuse participation and have their data deleted at any time without negative consequences. The audio recordings were transcribed, anonymized, and then deleted. All participants participated voluntarily and were not compensated financially, yet had the option to be notified about the study outcomes.

3.2 Thematic Analysis of National QT Frameworks

To identify themes and priorities within current national QT governance frameworks, we compared them to the insights of the interviews to identify similarities and differences. Official government documents focusing on the agenda, strategy, or policy for QTs, available in English, were eligible for this comparison, resulting in a dataset including the following fifteen countries.

  • Australia (AU)

  • Austria (AT)

  • Canada (CA)

  • Switzerland (CH)

  • Germany (DE)

  • Denmark (DK)

  • Ireland (IE)

  • Italy (IT)

  • Japan (JP)

  • South Corea (KR)

  • Netherlands (NL)

  • Sweden (SD)

  • United Kingdom (GB)

  • United States of America (US)

  • South Africa (ZA)

3.2.1 Framework Analysis Methodology

Themes and action points were identified in each national QT document, forming a database of all actions and objectives outlined in the frameworks. Initially created in Microsoft Excel, the database was later transferred to R Studio for visualization and analysis. The analysis focused on two variables: actions—statements with specific goals—and action categories—broader thematic groupings. Using predefined themes from expert interviews, we compared these with the action categories derived from the frameworks. Similar actions were consolidated under broader labels, such as merging “Securing quantum experts” and “Retaining and attracting talent” into “Securing talent,” enabling quantification of commonalities across frameworks. We then compared the actions and categories from the expert interviews with those identified in the framework analysis. This involved mapping the number and types of actions in each national QT framework, grouping them by category, and analyzing their relative frequency to assess how commonly certain actions appeared and whether they aligned with expert perspectives.

4 Results

This section presents the main findings from the QT expert interviews and the analysis of national QT governance frameworks.

4.1 Interview Findings

The interviews revealed a balanced discourse between recommendations for threat management and opportunity capitalization, with no marked preference for one over the other. Notably, while there was a slight tendency to discuss threats more frequently, this did not translate into a greater emphasis on threat management action recommendations over actions aimed at capitalizing on opportunities. During the coding of the interviews, four main themes emerged:

  • Innovation, research, and development,

  • Infrastructure and workforce development,

  • Security and safety,

  • Collaboration, inclusion, and diversity.

These categories informed the national QT governance framework analysis, allowing us to compare the themes and the actions recommended by experts with those implemented in national QT governance frameworks.

4.2 National QT Framework Findings

Figure 2 shows how national QT frameworks predominantly focus on actions to support innovation, research, and development (n = 80), followed by actions regarding infrastructure and workforce development (n = 50). The fewest actions are related to security and public safety (n = 39) and collaboration, inclusion, and diversity (n = 40). Please see Fig. 7 in the Appendix for a detailed overview of the actions per country. In the following sections, we will examine the findings for each theme more closely, highlighting the similarities and differences between the results from expert interviews and the analysis of the national QT frameworks.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

QT framework analysis: Number of actions across countries by action category

Full size image

4.3 Finding 1: Need for Innovation, Development, and Research

The expert interviews and the national framework analysis put emphasis on the need for innovation, development, and research (see Fig. 3). Both sources highlight the importance of continuous investment in QTs to foster advancements and maintain a competitive edge.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

QT framework analysis: Number of actions across countries for the action category “Innovation, Development, and Research”

Full size image

4.3.1 Expert Interviews

Experts unanimously recognized the potential of QTs to revolutionize various industries through enhanced optimization, drug discovery, material science, and other fields. However, there was also a prominent emphasis on the significant progress still required, the varying development stages of different QTs, and the necessity for government support and funding to achieve the desired outcomes in innovation and research. As one expert put it:

“To foster quantum technologies, I think we need more government investment. A lot of the investment is from the private sector, and there’s also a shortage of money at universities […] I’d like to see governments invest more into the technology[,… ].” - J

In discussing opportunity capitalization, experts stressed the need for governmental support in innovation, research, and development. They underscored the necessity for sustained funding to keep pace with rapid advancements in QT research, creating new research platforms and expanding existing ones.

4.3.2 National Frameworks

The national QT framework analysis indicated a strong commitment to supporting innovation, research, and development. Out of 15 countries, 14 included actions involving the establishment of new research initiatives and providing funding for current development efforts. This category had the most overall actions dedicated to it compared to the other three. The documents detail multiple strategies which were not mentioned in the expert interviews, including the formation of dedicated quantum research centers and collaboration with private enterprises and other actions.

4.3.3 Comparison

The perspectives from the experts and actions in the national frameworks align regarding the importance of continuous investment in QT research.

In the innovation, research, and development category, only two actions were commonly recommended by QT experts: funding for innovation, research, and development and identifying opportunities for QT development to inform decision-making (see Table 4). While these actions are prominent in national frameworks, there is a higher tendency towards initiating new projects, research centers, and business ventures. Additionally, four countries have outlined actions to facilitate information sharing and collaboration across industries, as well as to secure financial backing for research and development. The primary difference between the two sources is that national QT frameworks consider establishing programs and supporting commercialization efforts more than the experts, who focus more on the need for ongoing research funding and state support.

Table 4 Number of actions described in the National QT frameworks per action category and country
Full size table

To illustrate the comparison of the actions recommended in the expert interviews and those identified in the framework analysis, Table 4 shows actions where the national frameworks aligned with those identified in expert interviews, and how many are unique to national QT frameworks (referenced as framework-specific actions).

4.4 Finding 2: Infrastructure and Workforce Development Is Key for Development

The second finding underscores the essential role of infrastructure and workforce development in the progression of QTs (see Fig. 4). Here, we also observe a general consensus between the expert interviews and the national frameworks.

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

QT framework analysis: Number of actions across countries for the action category “Infrastructure and Workforce Development”

Full size image

4.4.1 Expert Interviews

When asked about policy and governance challenges, experts pinpointed the critical need to cultivate a technically skilled workforce. A key issue highlighted by experts is the current lack of expertise in QT within the workforce, posing risks to the development of the technologies. Additionally, there is a concern over the shortage of qualified talent in the expanding field of cybersecurity. This skill deficit threatens organizational and national security, as a workforce unprepared for quantum advancements may be unable to safeguard against emerging threats.

“there’s a huge quantum skills gap. […] what we really need to do is get talented people to become aware of the options for them and their career in this industry and really get that out there, but then also provide the education to allow people to go into these fields. We’re going to need all the talent we can find. And as jobs start to open up, we’re going to see folks fighting over the talent that exists.” - P

Moreover, experts stressed the importance of developing both infrastructure and a skilled workforce. They pointed to technical training as a catalyst for the innovation of QTs.

4.4.2 National Frameworks

National frameworks reflect a similar emphasis on infrastructure and workforce development. As visualized in Fig. 7, 14 out of 15 countries have adopted actions aimed at enhancing infrastructure and workforce skills. These actions include investing in new quantum hardware, leveraging existing infrastructure, and incorporating quantum physics into educational curricula.

4.4.3 Comparison

Between the experts and the actions in the national frameworks, there is a comparable focus on the need for infrastructure and workforce development. The expert-recommended actions largely coincide with those found in national frameworks. Experts primarily emphasized future improvements, such as enhancing education to cultivate new talent and investing in infrastructure. In contrast, frameworks not only addressed these future initiatives but also sought to optimize current resources. This included leveraging existing infrastructure and focusing on retaining and attracting talent already within the workforce. Both sources emphasized the urgent need to develop a skilled workforce and secure the necessary infrastructure to allow the technology to grow.

4.5 Finding 3: A Notable Gap in Security and Public Safety Emphasis

Although there were action recommendations from experts and within the national framework that focused on security and safety (see Fig. 5), there was a significant gap between the type of actions recommended and the emphasis on security between the expert interviews and the national framework analysis.

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

QT framework analysis: Number of actions across countries for the action category “Safeguard Safety, Security and Privacy”

Full size image

4.5.1 Expert Interviews

Security concerns, particularly related to cryptographic vulnerabilities, were a major focus for experts. The primary area of concern was cryptographic security and privacy. The majority of security threats identified relate to the potential for quantum computing to compromise existing cryptographic systems. Although most experts viewed this as a theoretical rather than an actualized threat, they underscored the significant risk it poses to asymmetric cryptographic protocols, which are fundamental to the security of digital interactions. As one expert noted:

“The threat afforded by quantum computing is well known. It’s a direct threat to today’s asymmetric cryptographic techniques, which underpins much of our trust infrastructure… Everything we do in today’s world is based on trust. And that digital trust is based on cryptography.” - Q

Moreover, experts underscored that despite the threat being a future concern, there is an urgent need for immediate action. This urgency arises because modifying large systems and establishing new standards are time-intensive processes. The threat to cryptographic systems was also linked to concerns about dual use and militarization of the technology. The ability of quantum computers to potentially break current cryptographic defenses raised concerns over unauthorized eavesdropping, primarily associated with military use due to the high costs of developing such technology. However, some experts also considered the potential for large technology companies or governments to use this technology for information gathering, mentioning incidents like the Snowden leaks, governmental Big Brother surveillance technologies, and the Cambridge Analytica data scandal.

Another key threat discussed by experts was the lack of agility in current cryptographic systems and a possible lack of understanding of cryptographic infrastructures. Experts pointed out that this lack of agility and understanding may cause systems to be vulnerable when migrating to quantum-resistant cryptographic protocols. As highlighted by an expert:

“They are not really taking stock of the inventory of their cryptographic protocols and what applications they use. Sometimes, companies have tens of thousands of applications that they use to run a business. And each one may have a different security protocol… We need to be crypto-agile; redesigning security protocols is going to be really important. Restructuring in a way that when new pieces of security protocols come into play that are approved and standardized, they can do the swapping without disturbing the whole system. So, they know exactly where their vulnerabilities are, and then they can perform this remediation.” - P

Finally, experts raised concerns about potential weaknesses in new cryptographic standards, which have yet to undergo the years of testing and use that current ones have. The experts referred to instances such as the SIKE breach, where the researchers Castryck and Decru introduced an attack method that could break the encryption of one of the four finalists in the NIST’s Post-Quantum Cryptography Standardization Project (Castryck & Decru, 2023; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2024). This incident highlights the possibility of undiscovered vulnerabilities in even the most promising new cryptographic methods.

4.5.2 National Frameworks

The number of actions in national frameworks does not immediately suggest a significantly lesser emphasis on security compared to the other two previously discussed themes. Twelve countries included some kind of security actions, see Fig. 7, these primarily focused on researching QT’s security and privacy implications and establishing international standards, see Table 4. Other actions were less common and varied significantly between countries. Additionally, security actions accounted for a smaller proportion of the total initiatives compared to the other categories.

4.5.3 Comparison

While the majority of national frameworks incorporate actions related to security and public safety, there is a gap between the actions considered in the expert interviews and those considered in the national frameworks. Only three countries specify actions to establish cryptographic agility in key infrastructures, despite this being a significant risk highlighted by experts. Experts frequently recommended concrete actions such as establishing post-quantum cryptographic standards and implementing cryptographic agility, contrasting with the vague references to international standards and agreements in national frameworks.

4.6 Finding 4: Collaboration, Inclusion, and Diversity as an Afterthought

The final finding reveals that collaboration, inclusion, and diversity were more frequently considered by experts than in national frameworks (see Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

QT framework analysis: Number of actions across countries for the action category “Collaboration, Inclusion, and Diversity”

Full size image

4.6.1 Expert Interviews

Eight out of ten experts discussed societal and ethical risks and proposed actions that countries could take to address them. Overall, the experts acknowledged the importance of these factors in fostering innovation and ensuring the ethical development of QTs. They highlighted the need for diverse perspectives to avoid biases and promote ethical practices, drawing parallels with previous technological developments. There was also a clear emphasis on fostering collaboration and inclusion. This entailed encouraging a holistic national approach to foster collaboration among academia, industry, and government, as well as international cooperation to drive innovation and establish unified security standards. Experts cautioned against framing QT development as a competitive race through national policies, advocating instead for a collaborative approach. They emphasized that diversity and inclusion are critical to resilient development, driving beneficial innovation through a varied workforce. Inclusive practices were framed as vital for risk mitigation, preventing public pushback, and ensuring equitable and ethical outcomes in development.

The societal and ethical concerns mainly concerned unequal access to QTs and democratization. Experts pointed out that high development costs of QTs may lead to a concentration of power among a few large tech firms and governments, risking homogeneous thinking, which could stifle innovation and perpetuate inequalities. One expert considered the digital divide the biggest threat to the technology:

“If we look at the digital divide, there are still 2 billion people who don’t have access to the internet. The AI divide is making that even worse, and the quantum divide will be off the charts. And what we see is the possibility that there are, you know, in the Global South and other areas without a quantum program, it’s not even possible to participate in the quantum economy. So, if I look at a combination of climate change and this huge technology disruption, this is the biggest threat I see.” - Q

Concerns about the ethical outputs of the technology also surfaced, an area that experts claimed is often overlooked during rapid technological progress. Several experts pointed to the challenges in AI development as a cautionary example, emphasizing how a lack of diversity can result in bias and unethical outcomes. They stressed the importance of considering potential consequences and ensuring that development is governed responsibly. As one expert said:

“I think that when we see something that has the potential for good, we tend to rush ahead and roll it out without the right piloting phase. […] for example, releasing ChatGPT into the world on a large scale, we’re now going to be approaching 200 million active users on that. The technology was only released last year. So now we’re starting to see where potential implications are, and it’s really scary. So, for me, I think that one way to safeguard against that is to make sure that the tech that gets released in phases with adequate periods of testing and auditing and all of that, so that we can see if there are going to be unintended consequences. We catch them and we try to really understand why and where and mitigate it.” – P

4.6.2 National Frameworks

Although actions for collaboration, inclusion, and diversity were included in 13 out of the 15 national frameworks, see Fig. 7, those actions were the least common of the four action categories, accounting for approximately 19% of the total actions. The most prevalent action within this sphere is fostering international collaboration, often framed as a commitment to developing regulations or joint initiatives with allied or ‘like-minded’ nations. Actions aimed at raising public awareness and diversity were also frequent but tended to focus more on introducing the technology to the general public rather than promoting diversity in education and the workforce. While fostering domestic cross-sector interactions was also commonly found, this was less pronounced.

Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Quantum technology framework analysis: Number of actions across countries by action category detailed for each country

Full size image

4.6.3 Comparison

Although the majority of experts discussed potential inequalities and the importance of considering ethical, societal, and environmental impacts, there are fewer action recommendations in these areas compared to security threats. National frameworks place even less emphasis on these issues. Notably, almost all actions related to collaboration, inclusion, and diversity mentioned in the frameworks were also discussed by experts, with only one unique action mentioned in a national framework. In other categories, the frameworks included multiple actions not found in the interviews.

5 Discussion & Conclusion

This section synthesizes the research findings by examining the similarities and differences between national governance frameworks for QTs and expert perspectives in the field. We will explore how these alignments can inform policy-making and future governance structures, emphasizing the societal and ethical considerations identified by experts. By analyzing these elements, we aim to propose actionable pathways for addressing existing gaps.

We will also reflect on the implications of our findings for responsible governance of QT innovation. This includes highlighting the need for a balanced approach that fosters technological advancement while simultaneously managing potential risks. Finally, we will discuss the limitations of this research and suggest directions for future studies to ensure comprehensive governance in the rapidly evolving landscape of QTs.

5.1 A Divergence between Governance Frameworks and Expert Perspectives

Our findings reveal broad consensus between expert perspectives and national QT frameworks on the need for financial support to advance QT research and innovation. Both emphasize the importance of physical infrastructure and workforce development. However, divergence emerges in addressing less tangible risks, such as security and ethical concerns.

Experts underscore the urgency of tackling security vulnerabilities and long-term privacy risks, advocating immediate action. National governance frameworks, by contrast, often underemphasize these concerns, suggesting a potential gap in addressing cryptographic security and public safety. Similarly, while experts stress the importance of addressing ethical and societal implications—such as inclusion, diversity, and potential societal harms—governance documents rarely provide concrete measures in these areas. This indicates that national strategies may underestimate the risks of neglecting these aspects or fail to fully leverage the benefits of inclusive QT development.

These findings will now be situated within the theoretical frameworks discussed earlier. National strategies tend to reflect the principles of Permissionless Innovation (PI), prioritizing funding, infrastructure, and talent while placing less emphasis on hypothetical risks. This approach encourages innovation by limiting regulatory constraints.

In contrast, expert perspectives align more closely with Responsible Innovation (RI), highlighting the need to proactively address ethical, societal, and security concerns early in the technological lifecycle. While QTs remain in early stages, experts argue that their transformative potential warrants early attention to governance to prevent negative outcomes.

The divergence between PI-oriented governance and RI-informed expert views has important implications. It suggests policymakers are driven by short-term political and economic pressures, while experts call for long-term strategies attentive to societal risks. Recognizing these differing priorities is crucial for shaping effective QT governance.

QTs currently occupy a precarious position, with many experts—both in this study and beyond—expressing concern over declining funding (Hossenfelder, 2022). Given the capital-intensive nature of QT development and uncertain returns, striking a balance between ethical governance and innovation is critical. This balance will be the focus of the next chapter, where we explore the implications for future governance frameworks in the QT domain.

5.2 Implications for the Future Governance of QTs

The current divergence between national governance frameworks and expert concerns carries risks for the broader future regulation of QTs. If governance frameworks fail to address ethical, security, and societal issues proactively, the technology could follow the same trajectory as other emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, where regulatory responses are playing catch-up to rapid development (Robles & Mallinson, 2023).

A balanced approach that integrates the principles of RI with a drive for innovation is thus critical. By focusing on responsible foresight and including ethical safeguards from the outset, robust governance frameworks can help ensure that QTs evolve in a way that benefits society broadly without creating unintended harm. Although predicting which threats might materialize is challenging, it is crucial to consider potential risks to ensure that decisions are informed, rather than solely driven by the pursuit of innovation (Vermaas, 2017). A more permissive, PI-oriented governance approach may serve to accelerate initial development, but risks undermining public trust and potentially creating harms that are difficult to mitigate retroactively. Therefore, a middle-ground approach is most suitable for QTs — one that avoids restrictive regulation, given the technology’s current ambiguity, while embedding responsibility into each step of the innovation process. Such an approach should also encourage the inclusion of diverse perspectives and consideration of potential impacts across various dimensions, such as environmental and societal effects.

This middle-ground approach could involve, for example, directing funding toward research that explicitly addresses ethical and security challenges or ensuring that infrastructure and knowledge development initiatives also include ethical education and training for those involved in QT research and regulation. This is additionally supported by a number of recently published reports and white papers.

The UK Regulatory Horizons Council (RHC) has, for instance, defined a fair and equitable middle-ground between different stakeholders, as one of their core principles for QT governance (Regulatory Horizons Council & Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, 2024). Additionally, in October 2024, the UK government has released a response to the RHC report that widely accepts the outlined recommendations and foresees actionable implementation for each recommendation (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, 2024). Moreover, the World Economic Forum report entitled Quantum Economic Blueprint has discussed existing and novel mechanisms to extend RI principles into actionable steps for strategy development addressing particularly unique challenges concerning QT (World Economic Forum, 2024). Specifically, the definition of common core values is thereby considered a key step to establishing responsible QT strategies, for instance in regard to enhancing transparency and buy-in. The values could then, so the argument, be persisted in hard regulatory and soft governance mechanisms. Additionally, the use of frameworks and tools to operationalize RI during evaluation of the impact of QT is considered an essential building block for strategies, potentially supported by public-private collaboration and inclusive engagement with the public. All of this would, however, require the upskilling of policymakers to enable informed decision-making about the regulation of QTs and about engaging in community-led concerns and prioritizations.

5.3 Addressing the Gaps for Policy Integration

To effectively bridge the divide between national governance frameworks and expert insights, several critical actions are necessary. The findings underscore the urgent need for integrating expert recommendations at multiple governance levels. The subsequent recommendations focus on interventions designed to assist policymakers in addressing previously neglected areas while ensuring that regulations do not hinder the technological development of QTs. While being distilled from the empirical analysis, the outlined recommendations are further supported by academic and practical literature, as discussed earlier.

Embracing flexible regulatory approaches: Regulatory approaches should remain adaptable, balancing prescriptive rules with responsiveness to evolving risks. This flexibility will ensure effective oversight while fostering innovation in the rapidly changing landscape of QTs. This is reflected in recent literature as well. In concrete terms, reports by both the WEF and RHC have recommended that policymakers should engage in application-based regulation strategies instead of aiming to provide an overarching technology-based policy to enhance agility and evolvement of technologies in various application domains to be as flexible as possible.

Institutionalizing Expert Advisory Panels: Establishing advisory panels composed of QT experts, ethicists, and various stakeholders is crucial for informed policymaking. These panels should include professionals from diverse technical fields, as well as experts in governance and ethics. Again, this aligns with literature recommendations. The RHC has advised to engage with industry for establishing standards for regulations. Similarly, the WEF has flagged the need to consider community-led standards to account for the fast pace of QT evolution and to benefit from a broad knowledge base and expertise in academia and practice. By incorporating a wide range of perspectives, so we contend here, such panels could in fact ensure that policymakers stay informed about technological advancements and their associated risks, fostering a more balanced and informed governance approach.

Prioritizing Ethical and Security Concerns in Governance Frameworks: Governance frameworks must not sideline ethical and societal considerations. Instead, they should consider and assess possible threats and include concrete actions to address these issues, such as allocating funding for research on QT-related security challenges and supporting the adoption of secure standards.

Fostering International Collaboration: While some QT initiatives have begun to address this issue, the efforts are still insufficient. QTs are inherently global in scope, necessitating international cooperation. Ensuring that national frameworks align with global standards of responsibility will help mitigate risks that transcend national boundaries, such as cybersecurity threats or ethical concerns related to cross-border applications of QTs. Similarly, the RHC has recommended supporting already existing national efforts regarding QT governance with forms of international dialogue, for instance in the form of international QT governance forums.

Incentivizing Responsible Innovation: Governments can encourage companies and research institutions to integrate RI principles into their projects. Mechanisms like grants, tax incentives, and public recognition can help align innovation efforts with ethical and societal objectives. This aligns with the RHC’s emphasis on the establishment of sandboxes and other forms of testbeds for RI. Additionally, national funding should enable research on the implications of QT and thereby foster responsible innovation and knowledge generation for policymakers.

5.4 Limitations and Areas for Future Research

To contextualize the findings of this study, it is important to acknowledge several limitations that may influence the conclusions drawn.

First, this study’s reliance on a limited number of expert interviews, despite providing analytical saturation within the frame of the sample, may not fully capture the diversity of perspectives within the QT community. While the sample and its size can be considered adequate for the exploratory nature of this study, especially given the inclusion of diverse backgrounds and skillsets of experts, including quantum physics and quantum computing, future studies could benefit from engaging a broader set of stakeholders, including policymakers, ethicists, and civil society representatives, to better understand governance challenges from multiple angles.

Additionally, exploring other governance challenges related to QTs, such as ethical implications, international collaboration, and regulatory harmonization, could further enrich the discourse on responsible innovation. Given the profound potential impact of QTs, sustained and rigorous research is essential to ensure that governance frameworks evolve in step with technological advances, effectively balancing innovation with societal welfare.

Finally, the experts we interviewed mostly had a background in quantum computing and communications. Therefore, quantum sensing experts and experts in other quantum subfields may be underrepresented. Although the final recommendations are intended to be broadly applicable, this bias may have resulted in less consideration for some quantum technologies. Furthermore, as the national QT frameworks analyzed in this work reflect countries with significant resources and motivation to invest in QT, future work should look more closely at QT policies and expert insights in countries with fewer resources.

5.5 Towards Responsible Innovation in QTs

This research highlights a significant divergence between national governance frameworks and expert insights regarding the governance of QTs. National frameworks are largely focused on spurring innovation, while experts emphasize a balanced approach that considers both the potential benefits and risks of these emerging technologies.

We argue that a balanced governance approach—one that supports technological innovation while embedding responsibility—is essential for realizing the full potential of QTs. Such an approach should align with the principles of Responsible Innovation by ensuring that ethical, societal, and security considerations are addressed proactively. This requires integrating expert insights at multiple levels, fostering international collaboration, and incentivizing responsible innovation practices. It is crucial, however, to avoid overly restrictive regulations that could stifle progress. Rather than imposing heavy regulation, responsibility should be embedded into governance actions, especially as QTs reach a critical stage where innovation, funding, and breakthroughs need to be supported without hindrance.

The path forward for QT governance is not simply about advancing technology at all costs, nor about restricting it unnecessarily. Instead, it is about finding the right balance between supporting innovation and ensuring that the development of these transformative technologies benefits society while minimizing their risks. By aligning national policies with RI principles and addressing current gaps in governance frameworks, we can create a more secure, ethical, and inclusive foundation for the development of QTs.

6 Appendix: Interview Guideline

6.1 Opening Statement

During our discussion, we will explore various aspects of quantum technologies and their potential implications. I encourage you to share any thoughts, opinions, and experiences you think of during the interview. I really appreciate you taking the time to sit down and share your expertise. I will be speaking with individuals from various backgrounds, so not all of the questions may be relevant to you. If there is a question you are not comfortable answering or do not have an answer for, let me know, and we can skip it. Or if you want to stop at any time or take a break, that is also completely fine. I expect the interview to take approximately one hour; Participant data will be stored securely and anonymously. So, before we start, did you have a moment to read the consent form? Is there anything you didn’t understand, or would you like me to elaborate? [Clarify questions and receive informed consent]

Now, let us dive into the interview. It will be in four sections. Is it okay with you if I start the audio recording now? [Yes: Start recording]

6.2 Block 1: Background & Demographics

To start off, I would like to ask a few demographic questions for analytical purposes only. Your responses will not impact the interview process.

  • What age are you?

  • What gender do you identify with?

  • What is your highest level of education?

  • Can you please explain in a few sentences what your professional background is and what experience you have with quantum technologies?

  • How many years approximately have you worked in a field related to quantum technologies?

Thank you. Now, we will move on to the second section of questions, where I will ask you about the benefits and threats that could arise with quantum technologies.

6.3 Block 2: Potential Implications of QT Development

  • What do you think are the potential consequences, i.e., benefits, threats, or challenges associated with the emergence of quantum technologies?

  • Which application areas, in your view, are most likely to be affected by these consequences?

  • Could you explain briefly in what way quantum technologies will affect these application areas?

  • Which groups or individuals, specifically, do you think will be most impacted?

  • What do you think are the implications for each of the affected parties?

  • Who do you consider to be the key players in the field who could utilize quantum technologies?

  • How do you expect these key players to utilize quantum technologies?

  • From a national security perspective and based on what you have already explained, what do you see as the primary implications of quantum technologies?

  • When you think about the impact of the risk posed by quantum technologies, which individuals or entities do you think are most vulnerable in terms of cybersecurity?

Great, now we will move on to the third section of questions. This section will look into how we could implement measures that take advantage of the benefits and mitigate the risks of quantum technologies.

6.4 Block 3: Measures for Safe and Efficient QT Development

  • In your opinion, how do you think quantum-resistant security methods should be implemented?

  • Who do you think should take the lead in implementing these changes?

  • Do you believe it is more appropriate for the government, academia, or the private sector to be primarily responsible for implementing quantum-resistant security measures? Who do you think will drive the changes?

  • What potential risks do you foresee in transitioning to quantum-resistant security methods?

  • What are the benefits that would arise from adopting quantum-resistant security methods?

Now, we will move on to the fourth and final section of questions, where we will talk briefly about how policy could help with the shift to quantum-resistant methods.

6.5 Block 4: Policy Recommendations

  • In your view, what proactive measures should be considered to foster the benefits and mitigate the security risks posed by quantum technologies?

  • How do you believe effective policies and strategies can be made to balance the risks and benefits of quantum-resistant methods?

  • What key factors should policymakers consider when developing policies and strategies regarding quantum technologies?

  • Extra Question: Finally, if you were in my shoes and interviewing quantum experts, is there any question you would add to this interview or any topic that you feel I have not covered yet but would like to elaborate on? If so, could you elaborate on this?

6.6 Closing Statement

With that, the interview has now concluded. Thank you so much for participating and sharing your insights. I really appreciate the time you have taken to contribute to this research. As stated in the consent form, you have the option to receive the results when the research findings are published. If you are interested, you can add your contact details there, and I will make sure to keep you informed. If you have any recommendations for people you think I could reach out to, or if you could put me in touch with anyone, I would really appreciate that. Otherwise, if you have any further questions or anything else you would like to add, feel free to contact me later.