Establishing the National Quantum Initiative Advisory Committee

Background

The 2019 order signed by President Trump initiated a centralized framework for enhancing the U.S. leadership in the nascent field of quantum information science (QIS). At its core, it established the National Quantum Initiative Advisory Committee under the aegis of the Department of Energy. This committee was tasked with providing guidance on the advancement of quantum technology and ensuring robust coordination across various state and non-state actors. Before its revocation, the executive order successfully aligned efforts across government agencies and stakeholders, including industries, academia, and national laboratories, fostering a cohesive strategy on quantum research that significantly improved collaboration and resource allocation.

Operational adjustments following the order included significant increases in funding allocations for quantum research. For example, agencies such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) saw an increase in resources directed towards projects in quantum computing and communications. These funds were aimed at driving progress in developing quantum sensing technologies and exploring the possibilities of quantum networks, underpinning potential breakthroughs in various applications like secure communications and advanced processing capabilities.

The enactment of the order also led to strategic directives without formal rulemaking that facilitated public-private partnerships, streamlining the transfer of technology from federally funded projects to commercial entities. Although the impact of this executive measure on everyday social policies was indirect, its influence was nonetheless palpable in shaping the trajectory of economic and national security strategies dependent on technological supremacy. By invigorating the national agenda on quantum initiatives, it set a precedent for future technology policy frameworks, underscoring the pivotal role of quantum science in securing economic growth and maintaining a competitive edge over global adversaries.

Reason for Revocation

On May 4, 2022, President Biden revoked the 2019 order, invoking a broader realignment of technological priorities and governance strategies. This change can be seen as a part of a comprehensive shift in federal technology and science policy, moving toward decentralizing responsibilities to enhance the flexibility and adaptability of initiatives like quantum science. By dismantling the centralized committee structure, the Biden Administration may have aimed to foster a more adaptive and dynamic ecosystem that responds swiftly to the emerging challenges and opportunities presented by rapid scientific advancements.

The underlying ideology propelling the revocation was also influenced by a need to streamline government, avoid duplication of efforts among various advisory entities, and promote inter-agency cooperation more naturally without the rigid structure imposed by the committee. It is possible that this strategic pivot aimed to distribute the administrative burden and allow individual agencies and research bodies more freedom to innovate and respond directly to industry dynamics without the bottleneck of a central advisory body.

Moreover, the emphasis on broader inclusivity and stakeholder engagement within science and technology fields could have been a driving force. By revoking the committee, the administration may have aimed to create room for broader participation from a wider array of institutions and communities, thus democratizing the influence over such strategic scientific fields. This move aligns with the broader policy objectives of making technological development more participatory and less monopolized by a few powerful entities.

The revocation of the order also reflects a commitment to continuous evaluation and reform of national advisory structures. As executive priorities evolve, the dissolution of older governing bodies enables the creation and implementation of innovative frameworks better suited to contemporary challenges and the advancements in quantum science. By reorganizing the advisory system, the Administration signaled an intention to remain agile and responsive to future technological revolutions.

Winners

The revocation of the 2019 order could potentially benefit a diverse set of stakeholders, beginning with certain high-tech corporations and tech startups engaged in quantum research. These entities, no longer constrained by strict federal directives under a centralized committee, may enjoy increased operational autonomy and greater access to innovation-friendly funding opportunities. The dissolution opens up pathways for direct collaborations with various agencies on bespoke projects tailored to specific technological developments.

Academic institutions may find themselves as beneficiaries of this revocation. With the central structure removed, universities might experience fewer bureaucratic hurdles in accessing federal resources and support for quantum research. The decentralization is likely to foster more grassroots innovation, and academic researchers could find it easier to adapt project focus in response to groundbreaking discoveries and interdisciplinary opportunities.

Another group poised to benefit includes non-profit technology coalitions and innovation hubs focusing on next-generation technological advancements. These organizations can now advocate for a more open and inclusive approach to policy-making in quantum science, allowing them to voice their concerns and participate in setting priorities through diverse forums and consultations that were previously dominated by the centralized advisory committee structure.

Losers

The revocation of this executive order is likely to disadvantage entities accustomed to a structured oversight model. Major federal laboratories and governmental agencies that depended on the centralized committee for strategic direction and cross-agency coordination might experience a temporary lapse in the coherence of their coordination efforts. These entities may face challenges in recalibrating their approach to quantum research amidst potentially fragmented policy directions.

Industry representatives who favored the predictability and stability provided by the centralized advisory body might feel the loss of a single point of contact for gathering insights and regulatory guidance. The revocation could disrupt robust lines of communication and collaboration between industries and government bodies, reversing some of the progress made through structured engagement and focused dialogue under the previous order.

Additionally, individual researchers and smaller tech firms lacking the resources to independently navigate the complexities of the national quantum landscape could face challenges. The removal of a dedicated advisory body responsible for aligning national resources and policy goals might result in decreased visibility and influence for these smaller entities, leaving them disadvantaged in favoring well-established corporations and research-heavy institutions. This could pose a threat to the inclusivity and equitability of technological advancement efforts in quantum science.