Aletta Meinsma and Julia Cramer argue that physicists must take responsibility for communicating a balanced view on quantum technologies
Many new technologies that emerge into public life are met, initially at least, with resistance. Over the past century, we have had to deal with everything from nuclear energy to biotechnology and more recently the emergence of artificial intelligence. While any new technology can have benefits, there are also risks that may not always be clearly communicated, resulting in widespread misunderstanding and sometimes unexpected consequences.
In the US in the 1950s, for example, the introduction of a mechanical tomato harvester have led to over 80% of tomato-growing companies going bankrupt within five years, with an estimated 32,000 farm workers losing their jobs. Many questioned what need the technology fulfilled and whose viewpoints had been overlooked as it was rolled out.
Yet the world doesn’t stand still, which is why it’s important to learn from these historical lessons when discussing quantum technology. We’re still at an early point in the application of quantum information so researchers have an opportunity they shouldn’t miss. By anticipating the impact of quantum technology long before there are any significant consequences for society, we can maximize the potential positive benefits while responding to negative impacts – and perhaps even prevent them altogether.
To do so, quantum scientists – who spend their days thinking over the theoretical, practical and ethical aspects of building quantum technology – must consider how to make their “story” valuable to the public. But rather than simply disseminating knowledge and treating the public as passive recipients, scientists should also pay attention to the public’s questions and concerns, and invest in those relationships.
According to a 2020 study by Cathelijne Reincke and colleagues from Utrecht University, researchers “should not hide behind their expert knowledge”, but instead respond to questions and concerns that may even be outside their field of expertise. Reincke and colleagues say that to help connect with the public and learn from them, it is also better if scientists bring up those questions and concerns themselves. Could, for example, criminal organizations use quantum technology or could it increase the digital divide further between low- and high-income regions?
A different approach
Conveying meaningful information about quantum science and technology to a wider audience, however, has to be done properly. For example, stating that quantum science and technology is “spooky and enigmatic” or not clearly explaining concepts such as entanglement can cause confusion. Framing quantum technology narrowly in terms of public good and having too strong a focus on quantum computing to the detriment of other promising applications is also not giving the audience the full picture.
In our “quantum and society” research group at Leiden University, we collaborated with Sanne Kristensen (Radboud University), Gudrun Reijnierse (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) and Ionica Smeets (Leiden University) to gauge how prevalent these issues are in popular quantum discourse. We did this by analysing more than 500 TEDx talks given in English between 2009 and 2020 that included information about quantum science and technology.
We anticipated that phrases such as “spooky and enigmatic”, would be commonly used, but in fact these phrases occurred in only 23% of the talks. Additionally, when mentioning quantum technology, most scientists did their best to explain difficult concepts in quantum physics such as “superposition” or “quantum entanglement”, while non-scientists more often than not just introduced the topic without explanation.
Let’s talk about quantum 2.0: why we need to sharpen up our language
However, we found that the risks associated with quantum technologies were widely omitted in public communication. Both scientists and non-scientists were happy to discuss the benefits of quantum technologies but were reluctant to say much about the downsides. Indeed, the positives were discussed some six times more than the negatives – 34% of talks framing quantum in a positive light while just 5% were negative.
Not everyone should be forced to be the public face of quantum technologies. But if you are a quantum scientist and enjoy giving public presentations about your research, then it can be valuable to reflect upon your own story. Instead of just talking about the benefits, consider touching on the potential risks too. It’s also worth explaining what personal relevance this field has for you – why you got involved in your research, what excites you about it and, of course, the public good it could provide.
In this way, your presentation might contribute to connecting to different people in different ways – which in turn could be valuable for quantum technology as a whole. For all the lessons that history teaches us, when it comes to quantum technologies we have an opportunity to do things differently.
- SEO Powered Content & PR Distribution. Get Amplified Today.
- PlatoData.Network Vertical Generative Ai. Empower Yourself. Access Here.
- PlatoAiStream. Web3 Intelligence. Knowledge Amplified. Access Here.
- PlatoESG. Carbon, CleanTech, Energy, Environment, Solar, Waste Management. Access Here.
- PlatoHealth. Biotech and Clinical Trials Intelligence. Access Here.
- Source: https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-must-improve-how-they-communicate-the-impact-of-quantum-technologies-before-its-too-late/
