cross-posted from: feddit.org/post/1019342
Preventing so-called technology leakage was top of the European Commission’s agenda when it in late 2023 named quantum technology as one of four critical fields it wanted to protect. Brussels has yet to publish a promised risk assessment, though, says Jeroen Groenewegen-Lau, Head of Program at the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS).
Europe should also increase control over the export of critical components for quantum computers to China. All European countries should follow Spain, France and the UK in declaring these items dual-use, forcing exporters to apply for permits for components that can have military as well as civilian uses. As much equipment is too widely used for control through a dual-use lists, Europe should also add policy tools so that, like the US, it can restrict exports to companies and research institutions known to work against its interests.
Taking a clear stance on the risks of quantum technologies will also enable Europe to better compete in the field. More than in digital technologies like artificial intelligence, Europe is well positioned to profit from the technology’s power – optimizing flight routes or supply chains, simulating chemical and biological processes at the atomic level. Long-term investment in basic quantum research not only led to a Nobel Prize in 2022, but has spawned quantum valleys in München and Lower Saxony, a quantum delta in the Netherlands, and the “QuantAlps” around Grenoble, to name but a few clusters.
sem@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
I did not see in the article any arguments, except the fact that Chinese researchers are in some US blacklists. Only proclamations about EU should restrict, EU should prevent, etc. But without any arguments why. Maybe lack of actual arguments is the reason why the article is so short?
0x815@feddit.org 3 months ago
So the article is quite clear, just read it.
Basically, it is what China has always been doing, too. Many argue that China has even harsher rules regarding international collaboration -in both science and economy- and does not show any willingness for reciprocity.
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 3 months ago
LOL any statement that includes “potentially” is quite the opposite of clear. It comes out of the realm of fantasy or fear (or both), and has usually been put there with manipulative intentions.
sem@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
I did not see in article any proof that Chineese scientists have a bad intentions. A statement about “they always do it [because they are evil maoists]” is not a proof for me.