.svg)
What should the US do to lead the quantum race?
Many experts are weighing in on the national strategic importance of quantum computing. Earlier this year, the White House held a summit highlighting this. It was discussed in a recent National Review article and is also the topic of an upcoming The Qubit Guy’s podcast episode with the former Director of the National Security Agency.
We asked LinkedIn “What should the US do it if wants to lead the quantum race in the long run?”
The most popular answer, provided by 38% of the respondents was “Increase R&D tax incentives”. This highlights the role of the government not as the leader in actually performing quantum R&D, but rather in providing incentives – in this case tax incentives – for companies that do so. By providing incentives, as opposed to direct grant funding, the government is not choosing winners and losers, but signaling to the market that quantum research is important,
33% of respondents did believe that “Increase government funding” is the answer. This can be through, for instance, DARPA-funded projects that are competitively scored by government experts.
5% of respondents believed that “Change the export regulations” is the answer. This could be either tighten export regulations to make it more difficult for bad actors to obtain US technologies or loosen export regulations to help companies sell more at the risk of advanced technologies reaching unintended destinations.
24% said “something else”. What could that something else be?
- It might be to invest in workforce training and education, to grow the next generation of scientists.
- It might be to guarantee an initial market for quantum computing services. By pre-purchasing cloud computing hours (and making them available for companies in a highly subsidized manner) the government can both make it attractive to set up quantum computers on the cloud, as well as provide lower-cost access to those experimenting with quantum.
- It might be to double down on the efforts to curb IP theft by hackers and state-sponsored organizations, so that IP remains under the control of those that developed it.
Or is it something else? What do you think?
Many experts are weighing in on the national strategic importance of quantum computing. Earlier this year, the White House held a summit highlighting this. It was discussed in a recent National Review article and is also the topic of an upcoming The Qubit Guy’s podcast episode with the former Director of the National Security Agency.
We asked LinkedIn “What should the US do it if wants to lead the quantum race in the long run?”
The most popular answer, provided by 38% of the respondents was “Increase R&D tax incentives”. This highlights the role of the government not as the leader in actually performing quantum R&D, but rather in providing incentives – in this case tax incentives – for companies that do so. By providing incentives, as opposed to direct grant funding, the government is not choosing winners and losers, but signaling to the market that quantum research is important,
33% of respondents did believe that “Increase government funding” is the answer. This can be through, for instance, DARPA-funded projects that are competitively scored by government experts.
5% of respondents believed that “Change the export regulations” is the answer. This could be either tighten export regulations to make it more difficult for bad actors to obtain US technologies or loosen export regulations to help companies sell more at the risk of advanced technologies reaching unintended destinations.
24% said “something else”. What could that something else be?
- It might be to invest in workforce training and education, to grow the next generation of scientists.
- It might be to guarantee an initial market for quantum computing services. By pre-purchasing cloud computing hours (and making them available for companies in a highly subsidized manner) the government can both make it attractive to set up quantum computers on the cloud, as well as provide lower-cost access to those experimenting with quantum.
- It might be to double down on the efforts to curb IP theft by hackers and state-sponsored organizations, so that IP remains under the control of those that developed it.
Or is it something else? What do you think?
