US Needs to Be More 'Proactive’ in Protecting Quantum Research, Official Says

Technology academics and industry officials this week cautioned Congress about potential U.S. export controls over quantum technologies and research, saying new restrictions without clear guidance could hamper U.S. competitiveness and innovation. But one current government official suggested the administration needs to be more “proactive” in protecting the most sensitive research from being stolen.

Charles Tahan, director of the National Quantum Coordination Office at the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, suggested the FBI and other law enforcement agencies need to intervene even earlier in the research and innovation process. He said the U.S. should not be waiting for its regulatory powers -- such as export control penalties and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. -- to tackle cases of technology theft.

“For emerging technologies like quantum, we need to get in early,” Tahan said during a June 7 House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing on quantum technology. “Waiting until CFIUS and other things -- that's way too late. We need to be very proactive with emerging technologies and get people educated. ... and that's what we've been working on."

Paul Dabbar, former undersecretary for science at the Energy Department during the Trump administration, said the agency uses a “technology risk matrix” to assess which technologies are safe to use on an “open science basis” and which technologies need to be protected. He said those protected technologies don't always include items subject to U.S. export controls, suggesting that other agencies “also look at that screening process.”

Several witnesses during the hearing said researchers working on quantum technologies want more export control guidance from the government. Universities for years have called on government officials to provide clearer guardrails surrounding what types of research activities they can conduct and share with China (see 2005120053), and although the Bureau of Industry and Security launched an effort last year to increase its university outreaches (see 2211150056 and 2206290019), academics say more can be done.

Emily Edwards, executive director at the University of Illinois’ Quantum Information Science and Technology Center, said many universities have put “in place export controls to follow the laws that are out there,” but said they would benefit from “an open dialogue on how these are implemented, and what is export controlled and what is not.” She also stressed that this dialogue should be “continuous” to keep up with the constantly changing pace of emerging technologies.

“The technology is advancing so fast, and the research and the labs at the universities changes really fast,” Edwards said. “I think the key at the university level is to ensure that there's open communications as these export controls are developed.” She said government, industry and academia should better explore “how we can work together.”

The U.S. should “maintain regular communication” with researchers to receive feedback on proposed export controls, said Celia Merzbacher, executive director of the Quantum Economic Development Consortium, a federally funded group formed to represent the quantum technology industry. Not only would this feedback help the government learn more about the “state of competitiveness” of the U.S. quantum industry, but it would also learn about the “maturity of technologies and use cases.” Experts and industry officials have previously told the government that regulating the technology now would be premature (see 2305020020) and (see 2206220022).

Merzbacher made similar comments, saying export control agencies need to be “very careful” to not harm U.S. innovation. “It’s early,” she said. “Any controls should be done multilaterally or we won't achieve our goals and risk hampering U.S. business.”

Deemed export controls -- which could place license requirements on certain technology transfers to foreign researchers or employees, even if the transfer takes place on U.S. soil -- would have a particularly “chilling impact on the ability of quantum companies to hire qualified talent,” Merzbacher said in her written testimony. “Qualified talent is a commodity in particularly short supply. The United States should reduce barriers to attracting and retaining the best and brightest.”

She added that end use and end user controls are “more likely to be effective” than list-based controls, and said any new restrictions should only be imposed alongside allies. “It won’t work to restrict access by adversaries to technologies manufactured in the United States when innovation is taking place in many other countries,” Merzbacher said.

But she also said she recognizes that quantum technology and research theft is a valid concern. While Merzbacher hasn’t personally seen any attempts to steal U.S. quantum research, she said “I assume it’s happening,” calling quantum a “big target.”

She said she works closely with U.S. law enforcement agencies, who sometimes speak to the companies represented by her consortium, especially the smaller businesses that “don't have someone whose full-time job is doing export control.” Those companies “need to have access to resources.”

“The government people remind us: once the secrets are out, it's too late,” Merzbacher said. “We need to be catching those problems before they lead to breaches and leaks.”