Rebecca Coates

Quantum technologies (QT) are advancing rapidly, promising advancements across a wide spectrum of applications but also raising significant ethical, societal, and geopolitical impacts, including dual-use capabilities, varying levels of access, and impending quantum divide(s). To address these, the Responsible Quantum Technologies (ResQT) community was established to share knowledge, perspectives, and best practices across various disciplines. Its mission is to ensure QT developments align with ethical principles, promote equity, and mitigate unintended consequences. Initial progress has been made, as scholars and policymakers increasingly recognize principles of responsible QT. However, more widespread dissemination is needed, and as QT matures, so must responsible QT. This paper provides a structured, situated synthesis of the ResQT community's current work and identifies future directions from within this community perspective. Drawing on historical lessons from artificial intelligence and nanotechnology, actions targeting the quantum divide(s) are addressed, including the implementation of responsible research and innovation, fostering wider stakeholder engagement, and sustainable development. These actions aim to build trust and engagement, facilitating the participatory and responsible development of QT. The ResQT community advocates that responsible QT should be an integral part of quantum development rather than an afterthought so that quantum technologies evolve toward a future that is technologically advanced and beneficial for all.

Quantum technologies promise transformative societal benefits yet also introduce significant uncertainties and ethical considerations. Public engagement is essential for their development, not just as good practice, but as a foundational pillar of Responsible Innovation (RI). This paper explores when , who and why the public may engage with quantum innovation - addressing the gap between the need for engagement and uncertainty around how best to engage. Drawing on a representative survey of 608 Australians, we empirically examine public awareness, perceptions of risks and benefits, and willingness to engage at different stages of quantum technology development. Despite low awareness, overall attitudes were open and cautiously optimistic. Many expressed an interest in engaging, peaking in later stages of innovation, even though RI emphasises early, upstream participation. At the early ideation stage , public willingness to engage was driven by perceived risks with a desire to shape socially beneficial outcomes. When designing prototypes , participants valued practical, commonsense contributions. In later stages of testing and deployment , perceived benefits were stronger motivators. These findings show public interest in engaging with quantum innovation, though effective engagement strategies must be adaptive, aligning engagement opportunities with public motivations at each stage to reflect societal values and avoid socially irresponsible path-dependent development.

As quantum computing development advances closer toward achieving fault-tolerant error-corrected realisation, debates on applications, impacts, risks, and benefits of quantum computing are timely and due. While there is awareness of the potential power and complexity of quantum computers, there has been relatively little attention on the social impacts and ethical implications of this technology. In grappling with the social impacts of quantum computing, some stakeholders have turned to applied ethics, specifically (classical) computer and Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics, for guidance. While computer and AI ethics are useful starting points for evaluating the ethical issues posed by quantum computing, uncritically applying existing sets of ethical principles risks overlooking how quantum computing differs from these technologies. We argue that borrowing of ethical principles and guidelines from AI and computing is inappropriate for several reasons: (1) quantum computing, classical computing, and AI are different technologies with significant material differences; (2) unlike AI and classical computers which have become established, quantum computing is an emerging technology, which has implications on the levels of accessibility and immediate impact in society; and (3) there are significant differences in the way AI and quantum computing have been developed and by whom. We also briefly summarise some of the unique risks and societ al impacts posed by quantum computing. We posit that these reasons support the argument for a new sub-field of quantum computing ethics, which would allow a relevant scholarship to develop and provide guidance as quantum computing technology continues to mature.

As AI systems increasingly influence various aspects of human life, it is critical to ensure their development and deployment align with ethical standards and societal values. Our paper argues that integrating expertise from Humanities, Social, and Economic Sciences (HSES) into AI development is essential to achieving responsible AI. We present four compelling reasons to advocate for this integration: enhancing social legitimacy, ensuring meaningful impact, strengthening credibility and capability building. These reasons emerged from a collaborative effort involving 16 researchers from AI and HSES fields. Together, we explored the enablers and barriers to integrating our knowledge for the purpose of developing effective, responsible, and socially grounded AI products. We aim to inspire others to adopt an integrated approach to AI development, promoting innovations that are both technologically advanced and aligned with societal needs.

Recent arguments for responsible innovation to progress beyond the narrow focus on open access and toward open science present the opportunity for a deliberate global transition to a culture of transparent and open scientific conduct that will deliver greater societal benefit. This paper presents results from a survey of 171 Australian scientists, researchers and other professionals on their expectations and perspectives of transparency and openness in current scientific research practice. The results suggest that for this cultural transition to occur, the responsibility for strengthening transparency and openness must be undertaken not only by scientists and researchers, but also research funding and delivery agencies, and even those beyond the research and innovation sector. These findings are a first step towards defining and understanding what open science means in an Australian context, and what shifts are needed from researchers, research institutions and policy makers to move toward open science for responsible innovation.

Many social theorists argue that institutions such as organized religion, the nuclear family and social traditions more generally, are in a rapid and potentially terminal decline. At the same time, there has been a growing emphasis on the processes of individualization, the rise of the ‘reflexive self’, de-traditionalization and an emergent view of life as a ‘planning project’ where individuals determine their future pathways through autonomous decision-making. Some authors, such as Giddens and Beck and Beck-Gernsheim argue that personal life, families and relationships are particularly affected by these changes, while others, such as Gross and Simmons or Smart and Shipman, advise more caution. In this article we interrogate this tension by using first-wave data from a longitudinal study involving over 7000 12–13-year-old high-school students from government, independent and Catholic schools in Queensland, Australia. In this article we provide key baseline findings on students’ expectations of marriage and family life to highlight several key issues that must be addressed by de-institutionalization and reflexivity theorists, and which illustrate the need for a more longitudinal evaluation of their claims.