Explore the World Economic Forum 2026 session ‘Why Quantum Is Around the Corner and Why It Is Not,’ examining the potential, challenges, and future outlook of quantum technologies through insights from global experts
At Davos 2026, leaders in quantum computing, sensing and policy argued that quantum is both imminent and stubbornly difficult. Physicist John Martinis traced today’s superconducting-qubit race to decades of foundational work, noting progress depends on “materials engineering” and moving beyond “artisanal” devices toward semiconductor-style manufacturing. Novo Nordisk Foundation’s Lene Oddershede emphasized near-term healthcare impact from quantum sensing already in hospital prototypes, while fault-tolerant computing remains constrained by “engineering control of the materials” and scalable reproducibility.
IBM CEO Arvind Krishna framed the near-term milestone as a shift from science to engineering: “the path…to the first ones that have incredible commercial value, is an engineering path.” He predicted the first problems “unlikely that a classical computer can do” could arrive in 2026–27, with commercialization following once cost, repetition and error rates improve. Early winners, he argued, will be “simple materials” (chemistry), select finance problems, and optimization—areas with “provable and known” algorithms.
Policy and inclusion were central. ITU Secretary-General Doreen Bogdan-Martin warned of a “quantum divide,” urging parallel progress on standards, security and skills. On cybersecurity, panelists urged immediate post-quantum migration; Krishna called it “a Y2K moment,” advising organizations to protect data now against “harvest now, decrypt later.” Overall advice: build internal talent to “map between the Old World and the New World,” experiment with today’s systems, and align national strategies to avoid leaving countries behind.
Hello and welcome to the session on why quantum is around the corner and why it is not. I'm Jennifer Schenker, editor in chief of The Innovator, and I'm very pleased to have with us here today, Lena Scherrer, who is chief scientific officer, planetary science and technology at Nordisk. Novo nordisk foundation. We have Doreen Bogdan-martin, secretary general, International Telecommunications Union, out of Geneva. We have John Martinez, professor emeritus, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA. Nobel Prize winning physicist. And, joining us a little bit later will be Arvind Krishna, the chairman and CEO of IBM. So I'm just going to take a moment here to set the scene. Quantum technologies are advancing rapidly across computing, communications and sensing, ushering in a new technological era. Quantum computing is poised to outperform classical systems in solving complex optimization, simulation, and cryptographic challenges with far reaching implications for finance, healthcare, climate modeling, energy systems, and more. Quantum communication leverages the principle of quantum mechanics to enable tamper proof, future resilient encryption, strengthening cybersecurity at a moment of escalating digital threats, quantum sensing offers unprecedented measurement precision, enabling breakthroughs in medical diagnostics, earth observation, navigation, environmental monitoring, and industrial quality control. The global momentum behind quantum is quite strong. Public sector investment alone now exceeds $40 billion, complemented by significant private sector research and venture funding. As these technologies converge, they are expected to solve problems previously considered intractable, driving profound economic, scientific and societal transformation. So let's start about talking about the technology's potential. And what's more natural than asking a Nobel Prize winning physicist whose technology has actually been used by both Google and IBM to major players in the quantum race. So, John, give us your, your your big picture perspective on quantum potential.
Well, I got started in quantum way back in graduate school. It was experiment I did was my thesis experiment. And it was very much fundamental physics at the time. And the basic explanation here is that we use quantum mechanics to describe how atoms works, or molecules, fundamental particles, microscopic particles. And at the time, there was a question whether macroscopic systems like the current and voltages and electrical circuit are circuits about a centimeter across. Can you see quantum mechanics in that? And there's some fundamental reasons to believe that. But it motivated, myself and Michelle and John Clark at UC Berkeley to do these experiments and to show quite conclusively that it did obey quantum mechanics and the like. But I think the important part of that is we laid the foundation of how these devices work, kind of a combination of microwave engineering, fabrication, quantum mechanics, which then set the stage for people to think about eventually using making qubits and building a quantum computer. And, it took a few years for the theory to kind of define what a quantum computer was and what you had to do. But with that, and government funding became available, me and many other people around the world, in fact, started working on that. And we just developed developed the technology, you know, and to get this to work, I've say that nature was very kind to us so that, although we had those initial experiments, we were able to figure out, like, for example, materials engineering over time, how to get that to work and build very complex systems. And I think it's great that there are many people around the world right now trying to build a quantum computer. I have a company where we have a unique view of how to build that, that I'm very excited about. And, you know, I think it's going to continue with superconducting qubits on this road for many years to come.
Okay. Thank you. Let me turn to you now, Lena. So we're in healthcare. Could quantum technologies unlock fundamentally new capabilities that classical computing and even AI could not do?
Yeah. Well, so it depends, I would say, on which timescale you ask. So if you ask about like now, in the near future, I would say quantum sensing is like the the quantum technology to make a the largest impact in health care and diagnostics. So quantum sensing can be used for detecting, cardiac diseases can be used for detecting, malnutrition. It can be used for detecting brain activity, metabolic dysfunctions etc.. So already today, actually there are prototypes of quantum sensors which are in function at hospitals around the world using entanglement basically to make extremely sensitive measurements that does, benefit patient care and diagnostics. And then we are just right now seeing maybe within the last year, the current year, the publication of the first, say, 10th of logical qubits. So when we have on the order of, say, 50 logical qubits that are well functioning in a quantum computer, there is hope that we can start simulating small molecules, over time scales and under conditions which are physiologically relevant. And here we will see a real change, a real supremacy when it comes to biomedical applications. So if we choose smartly, like tiny peptides, tiny molecules, but with a important impact, and then we use the the new computers that are just being, you know, emerging right now that are like maybe 3 or 4 companies that have these capacities, then I would say even within a year we will see supremacy on those. And then if you move even further into the future, say maybe another five years, then we'll see the fault tolerant quantum computer and then we'll see huge acceleration of drug discovery, for instance.
Okay. So clearly quantum is going to have a huge impact on business. But as someone who does research, what are some of the non-obvious applications that you would see coming for quantum?
I, I'm not quite sure how to answer that question, but I just want to go back to my thesis experiment looking at something very fundamental. Building a quantum computer was completely not obvious to me at the time, and it was only because of some very deep thinkers around that time who started thinking about quantum computing. One of them was Richard Feynman. I actually learned about quantum computing from him, and it's just an interplay between the theorists, and then proposing experimental systems and developing it. But it's been four decades in development. And to do something as radical as improving present day computing, you know, really takes a lot of people and a lot, a lot of time to kind of develop it and understand many, many developments have had to happen over the years.
So clearly, quantum is a step change in computing. And, you know, uses completely different principles. And, the people who are, specialists in today's computing, you know, will not be the specialists in tomorrow's computing. And, there's a race now, by, governments around the world to, you know, get to this quantum advantage first. And because it is so game changing, but, that brings in, some.
Other I just want I'm sorry to interrupt. Sure. Everyone wants to be there first, but if you're not first but you have a good effort in your company country, you'll then have the expertise to take advantage of whatever one else is doing it. So I think this global investment in quantum computing is good, because we will all be ready when some breakthrough comes through.
Well, it is important that we all be ready. And that's that's where I want to turn to Doreen, because, excitement about the technology led the United Nations to proclaim 2025 as the year of quantum. And, some but some company countries risk being left behind. The fear is that a growing global, quantum divide between countries, with established quantum technology programs and those without will lead to significant imbalances in core areas like healthcare, finance, manufacturing, and more. So when the World Economic Forum published a report two years ago on the quantum economy blueprint, only at that time, 24 out of the 193 member states of the United Nations had some form of national initiative or strategy to support quantum technology development. So what lessons from previous technology waves like mobile networks or the internet? Should we apply early to quantum to promote inclusion and shared economic benefit?
Well, thanks. Thanks, Jennifer. And great question. And I think also so relevant to the theme of this year's Davos, I mean, to have dialogue in this divided world. And I think, I think the world is very divided when it comes to technology, be it quantum artificial intelligence or even things like basic connectivity. And I also wanted to say that in terms of timing, what I found interesting, it's only Wednesday. We have two more days to go. But in terms of the discussions and things I'm hearing, a lot of it's still on artificial intelligence, but we're seeing more on quantum. I think the difference between this year and last year is that I'm hearing responsible AI. I'm hearing, let's put humans back at the center of AI discussions. Let's make it focused on people on purpose. And I think that's encouraging when it comes to quantum. Yes. Last year was declared the International Year on Quantum, I think in part because it was about building awareness, about the importance, about the potential, about the opportunities. But the reality is today that we have this divide and you still have a big percentage of the world's population that's not even connected to the internet. And when it comes to lessons, I think in terms of history in the ITU has a long history, 160 year history. We were started back in 1865 with the Telegraph. But some of those principles that led to the creation of the ITU still hold true even when it comes to things like quantum, interoperability, security, etc.. And I think coming to those lessons, if we think about mobile technology, some of us are old enough to remember having two phones, having the GSM phone, the CDM phone, CDMA phone. And it was because we had fragmented policy approaches. We had a fragmentation when it came to to standards. I think when it comes to the internet as well, it was a different kind of model, multi-stakeholder, open. Yet today we still have these 2.2 billion unconnected. And so I think when, when again coming to to quantum also looking at AI, we have to focus on the policy piece. We have to focus on the standards piece. ITU has a big role in standards making. We work with different partners ISO, IEC, we have about 40 standards linked to quantum communication networks. Working with some 300 experts, 100 plus organizations. So I think that's that's a start. But we have to make sure that we try to do these pieces in parallel. Things are moving 30 plus countries now investing. But we have to make sure that we try to put the policy pieces, even the skilling pieces, a lot of talk around these halls about the future of work. What should young people be studying? We need to make sure that we're also building a quantum future. And what kinds of skills will young people need?
So we've talked about, you know, the challenge of making sure that every country, you know, can work on this, and, and, that we have inclusion. Let's talk about some of the technical challenges that remain because, you know, the old joke is quantum is been is coming, you know, in the next ten years. And we've been saying that for a longer than ten years. Right. But now it's getting closer. But there are still significant technological challenges. So, Lina, can you what which which challenges do you think are the most difficult and and how far are we from, the quantum advantage.
Yeah. So I think, I mean, qubits exist and have existed for quite some time now. The thing is, it's not just a matter of having a qubit or having a number of qubits. It's a question of the quality of the qubits. It really boils down to how well can you control the material? How well can you control the individual electron, how it communicates with the rest of the world, the individual photon? How can you place the atom onto the crystal with a certain polarization, certain positioning, etc.? How reproducible can you do that? Because if you can do it with extreme control, then you have a high quality of qubits, and you also need to be able to scale it. So you need quality. You need scalability, you need speed, all those you need. And you have to be really strict on those parameters. And I think now we are we the world. We are not. At least I have not seen the publications where we are able to control the materials at a scale that is necessary for the fault tolerant quantum computer. However, we are on the route to getting there, but that's like a major roadblock. That's the actual engineering control of the materials and then of course, interfacing it to the rest of the stack, etc.. So that, in my opinion, is is the major roadblock.
John, what is your point of view on that? What do you see as the biggest challenges and how close are we to solving them?
So I thank you very much. I agree with what said. The way I like to put it is a systems engineering problem where you have to simultaneously optimize many things. There are maybe four.
Systems are have this kind of problem. You know, your cell phone, you're building that and the like. I would say quantum is a little bit more difficult because the various things you have to do tend to push against each other. So you try to optimize something and then this gets a little bit worse. But to speak very specifically, we're really concerned about materials for making our qubits and fabrication. And right now what I would say is people have making qubits. And I was involved in all this in kind of I'll call it artisanal way. It's the way that you build the first qubits, and that's very good. But in my view, it's a little bit like we were in the early 1960s building transistors with all these wires around. Whereas what we want to do is have something in the late 1970s where you had a microchip. And so what we're doing is trying to develop that technology and changing the way we architect everything using the most advanced semiconductor processes, 300mm, using companies who are building the tools, the most advanced semiconductor tools. And our thesis is if we really want to scale up and do it reliably and, you know, low errors as you talk about, that's the way we're going to have to proceed in the future.
Okay. Thanks, Arvind. Thank you so much. So, so glad to have you here. So we were just talking about some of the technical challenges to reaching the quantum advantage. As the, the CEO and chairman of IBM, I have to ask you why, if we're getting closer to the quantum advantage, why are we still talking about qubits and not about revenue impact, etc.? When when are we going to get there?
Thank you. I'll answer your question in 30s, but I first have to acknowledge, maybe you covered it before I came, but Doctor Martinez deserves a lot of credit for the work going back all the way to his doctorate and first postdoc, because the technologies that I believe are going to bring useful value to this room were first invented out of his early, early work. And many, many others, including us, have built on that work since then. So let me just begin by saying that. Look, it is not yet commercial because we are not yet at a scale that can bring a lot of useful value. We can see it around the corner. We can debate is that corner two years, three years or five years? And probably in the middle of that, some others have said 10 to 15. And then they had to walk their words back that maybe it's closer than than that. The reason always is you have to first convince. And I think it's authentic that the science community, not every scientist, but every college, the science community, should be convinced that this completely new form of computing. And I try to strip the esoteric language out of it by saying, look, it does a third kind of math. Normal computers do. I'll call it a little bit superficially arithmetic, but let's call it algebra. GPUs or AI do matrix math. These do math on which the math was actually invented before quantum mechanics came around, lie algebras and math like that. So these are going to do that. So the question comes to when will we have the scale on which you can do something that is unlikely that a classical computer can do? I think that moment will come in 26 or 27, so it's not that far away. That doesn't yet mean that it is cheap enough. And, you can do it with enough repetition with fewer errors. So then another year or two to reach that point. So I actually believe that the path from now not to the end, not to the eventual quantum computers, but to the first ones that have incredible commercial value, is an engineering path as opposed to science. When I say science, I mean, do we know how to take quantum states meters away? That's a science problem. We think we can do it, but we don't quite know how can we confine it? As Doctor Martinez said, to one semiconductor, maybe in one cryostat? Yeah, we think we know how to do that. So to make that work is engineering. And as I think the world has realized, one, it's an engineering problem. Those with enough grit, the expense, the talent can usually get there. When it's a science problem. Then you need science to be maybe discovered is the right word. Maybe invented is the wrong word in science.
Okay, so, which industries, from IBM's viewpoint, which industries will see the the the most impact first? Are some industries benefiting now?
I don't think anybody is benefiting now. I think people have concluded they can benefit when we get to this. I have held a very strong point of view. Number one is going to be simple materials. Let's call it simple molecules. Molecules with a couple of hundred electrons or less. So think maybe lubricants from fuel. Lubricants are very important because they can reduce the amount of energy needed. Today we get 30% of the oil out from an oil. Well that's it. If you could get a better lubricant, maybe that can turn into 40. That means less drilling, less environmental impact, less lots of things, but simple molecules. Maybe we can turn quantum computers to say, is there a better material to do carbon sequestration? Those are the kinds that will be number one. By the way, the materials industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry. We're talking between 5 and 10, depending on how you want to call it. So even a 5% productivity advantage there could have massive I hold a side. Hope I'm not going to tell you this is a guarantee that maybe we can invent better fertilizers. Fertilizers today are based on a process that was invented by a German chemist, I think in 1890. It's literally the same process, the haber-bosch process, to sort of crack and make ammonia and then convert it to urea and nitrogen to fix nitrogen. We know bacteria fix nitrogen with photons. So we know there is an alternate biochemistry process that works. We have no idea how to discover it. Maybe we'll get there. So chemistry I think, is one big area. The second one, which everybody is excited about is problems in finance. So certain not all certain problems in finance, pricing of very complicated instruments, things when you put multiple constraints are very hard to solve through the current methods. Those are going to bring value. And the third area is around optimization. These by the way I stick to these three and not more because in these three the algorithms to do it on a scalable quantum computer are provable and known in other areas. We believe we'll get there, but they're not yet known.
I think that's a great point, because many people have that I've talked to have the impression that we're going to get to this moment of quantum advantage and then, you know, business will just be able to apply it to whatever their problem is. But it's individual algorithms have to be developed for specific problems and specific sectors, and those will be ready at different times. Correct.
Because you see a different appetite. I see half a dozen banks embracing it, figuring out internally it's a two year journey from the time they get interested to when they learn, okay, this is a really different thing. How do I use it? Then? They have to use their data to see is it applicable. So now we're talking. That's a three year journey. Clearly the vast majority are waiting for that first moment. That means they'll be 2 to 3 years after that. So it kind of points to the timeline you just laid out.
Yes. Okay. So, John, let me turn back to you. Is there a risk that the commercialization pressure could distort scientific priorities and quantum research? And what role do you think academia, academia could still play in, in in a space that is increasingly dominated by commercial companies?
So I can give you a very specific example, and that's in fabrication and materials and processing of these devices. And if you look at, for example, the semiconductor industry, this kind of technology is really kept under wraps for each of the company. And there's a good reason for that. And we understand that. And then the academic community can add to some knowledge and doing that. And that's what's happening with, with the that the superconducting qubits, I think in other qubit modalities too, it's very natural. And I think if we could share a little bit more information than I think the whole field can go faster. And I would say maybe we could compete a little bit better with China, for example. But I understand the economic realities. And for our company, yeah, we're not talking about all those details for the same reason. I think we can help a little bit. But in the end, I think there's a lot of competition. People are working really hard. People will figure it out. And, you know, the good ideas will kind of float to the surface.
Lena, do you have a point of view on that?
Yeah. I mean, I think actually competition is good because it pushes people to work harder to achieve a certain goal. So we have a supported initiative which is called Quantum Foundry, with the purpose of making quantum materials of the highest quality and producing quantum chips. Now, already now they have products that could in principle be sold. However, we as a foundation, we have decided to to not push the engineers to go down that route, because that's not where we want to go. We want to go towards fault tolerance. So therefore it could be a risk if you deviate and go towards an early, win in terms of commercialization, then you don't get like the big win, right. So that's why we as a foundation have decided we we will protect the researchers and engineers. So they are not they don't have to get the quick little wins, but can really focus on what the mission is of this project. And I think at least they seem to to to be really happy about this, that they don't all the time need to, to like, satisfy, try to attract new investors, etc., but can really laser focus on the target.
So we're at a stage in the development of the technology where, it isn't yet clear which of the different approaches to quantum will win. Tell us a little bit about, you know, IBM's approach. Why why you've chosen that route. And, and then we'll, we'll have a discussion about the other approaches.
I'm just going to add one sentence very quickly to the prior topic. When it's an engineering problem, you can debate because of competition, because of other things, you're going to keep it more protected for some amount of time. The science problems of which there's an infinite number. I really would encourage academia to work on those which are beyond sort of the two, three, five year roadmap. And there's a huge number of those. So look, the making a quantum computer is a lot more than just a qubit. I actually think that, unfortunately, that word has been latched on mostly by the media. So it becomes the mnemonic you've got to think about. It's not just a qubit. How do you control the qubit? I actually believe that a more perfect qubit is going to be harder to control, because if you can't change its state, which is why it's perfect, how the hell do you control it? You got to have them interact with each other. So there is a golden mean somewhere that each of these technologies has to get to. All right. But now you have to think about what are the materials, what is your semiconductor process, what is your packaging process? What are your cryogenics, by the way? There's a lot of controls that come out of semiconductors that help you manage all of these. What is the software that is going to make it easy for people to access these machines? You just mentioned algorithms, which then becomes the equivalent of what we would call libraries in today's computer world. You got to think about is this machine self-tuning when it because we know that the coherence time is milliseconds or seconds or minutes, it's not more than that for the foreseeable future. Does it get back to a state which can be used? You got to have this whole collection of technologies. The piece that we are talking about, which is it is just one out of these ten pieces. We have bet on this because when we looked at this, we believed that the low or the cryogenic temperatures just above absolute zero superconducting, which is a macro architecture as opposed to a micro as atomic level architecture, is going to make progress. The fastest, is the most controllable and actually can be manufactured at scale in a current semiconductor process. The advantage of that should not be ignored. Now we could be wrong, but the other 90% of the work still applies, and we would be very quick if we realized that some other approach is correct, to either bring on those engineers and scientists or work with them, because we have a lot of other capability. So, yes, we're making a big bet on one approach. I'm very clear about that. But that doesn't mean that we're completely blind to other approaches should they come. Okay, that said.
And what I liked about your discussion is you really talked about how there's many parts that you have to get right at the same time. I mean, one example is superconducting qubits is they're fast, okay, much faster than, say, other atom based approaches. And of course, you have to get the quantum computer to work well. But if you you're always looking for speed and that and that counts for a lot in this kind of computation world.
I'm glad you brought that up. Most of the other approaches, people don't want to admit it, but there are 1000 to 10,000 times slower. Yeah. So okay, so unless that 10,000 times better, the speed you get on the first approach is going to win.
But we have to get lots of things to work well, as we all are. I didn't even.
Mention error correction.
Yeah okay. So what's your point of view on advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches.
So I would say we take an approach.
Where we build four platforms simultaneously because they each have different capabilities and pros and cons. Like the neutral atoms, they may be able to store information for a longer time. So it may be that the optimal solution would be a combination of different qubits. And that's our approach actually, is that we keep on going with four different platforms in our program, and then find out how would they optimally. Interface and work together in order to form a the optimal quantum computer. Then, of course, we use the speed of the superconducting qubits for sure, but then we may use the neutral atoms, we may use the spins, etc.. Yeah.
Okay. So assuming that the technical I'm sorry Doreen.
Just to jump in to pick up on a couple of the points starting with your point. John, as well, in terms of sharing, you talked about sharing, you know, the on a global level, like the it was a good platform for sharing because we have the engineers, we have a whole bunch of scientists, we have the academics, we also have the private sector and governments. And I think when it comes to this space, my hope is we don't come back here in five years and say, oh my God, quantum has done all these things just for a handful of countries, and we have all these other countries that are left behind. So, you know, to be able to have that kind of sharing in a global platform, I think also helps move the conversation forward.
I think on many of the layers of the complete stack, you can talk about doing that. And I think it could be done for some of the core technologies when something could also be a weapon, as in decryption, then you actually reach all kinds of concerns around if you share, where do you stop the boundary? And I think it's impossible to stop the boundary, which almost prohibits sharing for some of the most critical elements. At this stage of the evolution, I just think that people forget about that. So most of us who work on it do get a lot of questions from government. They don't control us because they accept right now that we are self constrained in how far we let the technologies go.
Just to quickly respond in terms of sharing, what I meant was like for standards making. So we're in the process of upgrading our X509 standard, which is the security standard for for digital to take into account quantum. Right. Because one of the biggest vulnerabilities.
I think that's a great.
Example, encryption.
Yes.
Right. So we want to make sure that that is not going to expose, you know, the.
And actually I think as a company on that one on post-quantum cryptography and certificates, I think as a company, we are actually working, to make submissions and so forth on that. So there are areas where you can share actually, and everybody benefits.
Right.
Can I maybe to that point. So we in the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a charitable non-profit foundation. So we collaborate with the Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust. And so we have in something called the Tripartite Agreement. And so we we have a common goal of making technologies available to say, the Global South. Of course, we do this in a responsible manner. Also, there is a major difference between, say, artificial intelligence, which by now is quite mature and yes, can be shared and should be shared and can really accelerate, say, health in the global South and quantum, which is definitely not mature at this point. So my guess is that if we look, say, five years down the line, some quantum technologies will be available, but probably will be lacking some years behind, like in the countries where they're developed depending, you know, compared to the global south. But I'm quite sure they will be available, but maybe later. But then on the other hand, they may have actually the advantage of sometimes, as you also said, there's an advantage of being second mover, the advantage of being first movers. Yes. But then you also make all the mistakes. If you are a second mover, then you can learn from everybody else's mistakes and you can simply go faster.
Actually, I think Global South will get it at the same time because everybody is going to give them this remote access. We all learned that remote access and cloud approaches work, so we will absolutely get it. But I actually think that if I think about algorithms, if I think about use cases, if I think about cryptography, if I think about safety, if I think about cryogenics, I think those are all areas where it's hard to assert that those should be constrained or kept to only one place.
Maybe we should spend another minute or two on, post-quantum and how businesses should be thinking about that, what they should be doing to prepare. Do you want to take that?
I'll start. I'm sure they all have an opinion to the cryptography that looks like quantum cannot crack is well known and well understood. It's based on a mathematics field from 30 years ago called lattice cryptography. And from everything that the deep cryptographers, not just in corporations, but in academia and in governments around the world, have studied that approach is valid. NIST ran a competition starting ten years ago. 200 people submitted. They picked four, out of the 200 that they felt good. I think that those four is a great starting block for the world to use. Now, when is that moment coming? Because people say, well, if it's going to be in 2045, I don't really care. I would assert that. Not that I'm saying it will happen, but people should be prepared that maybe by 2030, maybe by 2035. At the outset, nation states may have the capability. So what are you putting out that if somebody captures they can't break today, but they could break. And if it is still of value in ten years, maybe you should think about doing it now. I think this is like a Y2K moment, but maybe smaller, because these other alternates are not actually more complicated than the current. You just have to change.
And I completely agree with the time period, you know, 5 to 10 years and that we should be preparing now that it could happen in 5 to 10 years. And we have to start preparing now to switch over into something that's safe.
By the way, that that advocacy, that that's what ought to be done is something actually that your organization could be doing, because that is a more neutral place, because if we say it, it sounds self-serving.
Yeah, absolutely.
I don't know if I can have a wish to you if if you could somehow work for the fact that it will become mandatory in the European Union to use those standards and to prepare and not just a recommendation, because if it's just a recommendation, then you know, you have the weakest link in, say, the finance chain. And then we are pretty much in trouble. All of us.
Finance, healthcare, government. I mean, like, I really want my messages being listened to by somebody.
Exactly. So it should really be a requirement that you need to live.
Up to what I meant by advocacy.
Yeah. No, I get it, I get it. I mean, just just a couple quick things that we're doing. So we started this, Quantum World Tour. So we're trying to showcase what different countries are doing in terms of policies, in terms of technologies. And I think that comes also back to to the sharing and to the advocacy. We also launched something called quantum for good. Coming back to your healthcare reference, trying to put the spotlight on like, what are the solutions that we can we can be looking at when it comes to the standards piece. So our standards are voluntary? Exactly. We make recommendations. But we do kind of highlight what's working and what's not working. And so I think that could be something that we can we can take further in terms of.
But maybe the way to go is you go ITU has a standard. I'll put the word voluntary aside and say it's a recommendation, but it's something that experts have looked at. But then maybe there is one person who advocates and takes it into the EU and says for banking and healthcare and a few things like that, the EU can mandate it, because I accept that you can't mandate companies, but the EU can. That's one way to do it. We know in the United States there's a pretty heavy mandate in parts of the government because they put out an executive order. So it's not a law, but there is an EO that says that every agency has to think about what they're going to do in the next two years. So they got to come back with explicit plans. But that's confined to government right now, not yet outside of government.
So let's keeping on, since we're almost at the end of our panel, keeping with the theme of being prepared, I'd like to ask each of the panelists, what are the 1 or 2 things that every company, every country, should be doing over the next 1 to 2 years to prepare for the age of quantum?
To me, it's about because it's a new kind of math, just like I would say we could predict AI coming in 2015, but it took till 2022 to kind of get there. It takes years to get used to the new kind of math and what could be of value. Forget is there a quantum computer? Assume there will be one. So ask yourself the question how long will it take? Who are my unique three, four, five people who can map between the Old World and the New World? And they should then come to the conclusion of what use cases could be of value. Learn how to use the quantum computers of today, which I admit are subscale, and then you're ready that when they come, you actually don't have to do that massive amount of prep work at that point.
Okay, John.
So I agree with that. I was going to think about, let's say, for smaller countries that don't have the resources. The thing that's interesting about this is if you were big enough to have some investment in basic science, not all countries can do that. But if you're big enough, this is a really interesting area to invest some basic science funding in because there are potential practical applications. And especially if you look at the theory side, there are a lot of theoretical problems. And as a small country, if you have the right person, they may be able to invent something that's quite important and impactful for the field. So I think of it as a very good fundamental science project.
Okay, great. Lena.
Actually much agree with Krishna in that I think companies should simply, you know, just start playing around with the programming. Quantum computers get their fingers on it, learn what problems are relevant for quantum computers and which are not, because some are actually not. What is the step that you could advantageously use a qubit for? And you may not do better actually with classical compute this is not easy. This is really difficult. So I really would say that the companies, they should start to do that and then also prepare themselves for, say, the data security now that there will be quantum enabled decryption. So I think those would be the two things I would recommend. Okay. Yeah.
I mean I think picking up on your points, the preparedness piece, I think all countries, regardless of their where they are in terms of digital development, they should be acting now to get prepared. I think your point, Arvind, about use cases is a key one. We've seen a lot of technologies stumble, get blocked because the use cases were not compelling. So focusing on those use cases is fundamental. And then I love the invest in science because we do need to be investing in sciences. And we need to think about again that workforce of the future. We need physicists, we need engineers, we need software developers. Yesterday I heard in a in a session we need a lot of philosophy majors out there. So maybe that's also something we have to be investing in. But I think we have to start gearing up and getting ready now.
Thank you. We're almost out of time. So I think the key takeaways here are invest in science. Upskill your workforce. Think about use cases. The quantum is coming. The impact is not being felt yet. But there will be a huge impact. And we need to start thinking now about inclusion and and equity. And with that, I'd like to thank our panelists. Thank you very much.
Thank you.