The following is a section from an article currently under review at Minerva. No part is to be quoted or reproduced without permission from the authors:
‘The Quantum Manifesto calls upon Member States and the European Commission to launch a €1 billion Flagship-scale initiative in Quantum Technology…This initiative aims to place Europe at the forefront of the Second Quantum Revolution now unfolding worldwide, bringing transformative advances to science, Industry and society’
‘Introduction to the European Quantum Manifesto’, 2016
‘A spectre is haunting Europe…’
Marx and Engels, ‘Introduction to the Manifesto of the Communist Party’
1. Introduction
A spectre is haunting Europe: the spectre of quantum technological revolution. Unlike the spectre referred to in Marx and Engels’ manifesto, however, it has been widely embraced by the European Union and European governments alike. Two years after the release of the Quantum Manifesto in 2016, the European Quantum Flagship was founded as a direct response to its demands. The Flagship describes itself as ‘a long-term research and innovation initiative that aims to put Europe at the forefront of the second quantum revolution’ (Quantum Flagship). Drawing on the manifesto’s ambitions, the stated aims of the flagship were ‘to bring together research institutions, and industry and public funders, consolidating and expanding European scientific leadership and excellence in quantum technologies’ (de Touzalin et al 2016).
Despite the calls for the European quantum revolution to be brought into being through the combination of huge state investment, scientific research and market innovation, the prevailing conception and representation of quantum development has been one in which the presence of the state is largely absent, and one in which the market has assumed the dominant position, with an ambiguous - sometimes invisible role - played by those physicists and technicians working day-to-day to develop the technologies upon which the quantum revolution depends. This article seeks to explore the relationship between the discourse of revolution, the organisation of quantum technological development in Europe and its impact on the social shaping of quantum technology.
The article begins with an overview of the development of quantum revolution discourse before locating one source of that in private reports, most typically those produced by consultancy companies. The article suggests that one key element of quantum revolution discourse is that of connecting revolutionary technology with free market activity. Following this the article moves on to present data to describe the structure of quantum technology development in Europe - with a specific focus on Spain - where it is argued that the structure of organisation is based upon an important relationship between state funding and scientific projects, a relationship which is completely different to that presented in private sector reports, or that implied in ‘revolutionary’ discourse. The article suggests however that one crucial role played by projects is to perform as much as possible as though there was a significant degree of market activity. This focus on making a market follows the signals directed by EU and government grants. The article suggests that this structural organisation is matched by the discourse of scientific leaders and techno-scientific entrepreneurs who fashion themselves as either building markets or being the market, typically in the form of patent holders and/or heads of start-ups (usually funded by the state-backed projects of which they are a part). Such performances unite an enchanted attitude to technologies - ‘we cannot worry about their effects’ - with an ideological commitment to markets as the appropriate mechanism for developing quantum technological potential. The article argues that the act of making the actual mechanisms of funding and organisation invisible whilst celebrating technology and markets is served through the concept of ‘Quantum Revolution’ and accounts for its dominance and the lack of critical attention paid to it.
The final section of the article considers the effect of this organisational and discursive structure on the concept of ‘delegation’. Much work in the fields of sociology of science and technology and STS has shown us the ways in which artefacts derive meaning from the particular spaces in which they operate and from the interests attributed to them by their builders and users. This paper suggests that the effects of the organisation of quantum technological development in Europe and the discursive structure around ‘quantum technologies’ produce a situation where for those closest to developing the technology are simultaneously made invisible as technicians (unless they act as market actors!) and are unable to shape, or delegate to, those technologies they are building. Despite convincing calls to pay attention to the intention of social groups and their delegation to specific, usually innovative, technologies (Pinch, 2010), we demonstrate that intentionality is not always enough. We suggest the term ‘neg-legation’ to describe the state of affairs for artefact building in a situation of enchanted technologies and privileged markets. ‘Neglegation’ refers to the state of being structurally prevented from shaping a technology or technological system. It should be understood as the opposite of delegation.. It is hypothesised that with the combination of enchanted technologies, and fetishised markets, neglegation is a key mechanism for the lack of accountability and responsibility that is a feature in the development of new technologies (Campolo & Crawford 2020).