Why Quantum Is Around the Corner and Why It Is Not

21 Jan 2026 14:30h - 15:15h

Session at a glance

Summary

This World Economic Forum panel discussion examined the current state and future potential of quantum technologies, featuring experts from academia, industry, and international organizations. The conversation explored quantum computing’s promise to revolutionize fields like healthcare, finance, and materials science through fundamentally different computational approaches that could solve previously intractable problems.

Nobel Prize-winning physicist John Martinis provided historical context, explaining how his foundational research on quantum mechanics in macroscopic systems laid the groundwork for today’s quantum computing efforts. The panelists agreed that while quantum sensing applications are already showing promise in healthcare diagnostics, true quantum advantage in computing remains 2-5 years away, requiring significant engineering advances in qubit quality, scalability, and error correction.

IBM’s CEO Arvind Krishna emphasized that quantum computers will perform a fundamentally different type of mathematics, focusing initially on materials science, financial optimization, and molecular simulation. He stressed that reaching commercial viability is now primarily an engineering challenge rather than a scientific one. The discussion highlighted concerns about global quantum divides, with ITU’s Doreen Bogdan-Martin noting that only 24 of 193 UN member states had quantum strategies as of two years ago.

A critical near-term concern discussed was post-quantum cryptography, with experts recommending immediate preparation for new encryption standards to protect against future quantum decryption capabilities. The panel concluded that organizations should begin experimenting with quantum programming, identifying relevant use cases, and investing in workforce development now. Key recommendations included focusing on practical applications, ensuring global inclusion in quantum development, and preparing cybersecurity infrastructure for the quantum era that lies just ahead.

Keypoints

Major Discussion Points:

– Quantum Technology Timeline and Commercial Viability: The panel extensively discussed when quantum technologies will become commercially viable, with most experts agreeing on a 2-5 year timeline for quantum advantage in specific applications. IBM’s CEO suggested 2026-2027 for the first commercially valuable quantum computers, emphasizing that current challenges are primarily engineering rather than scientific.

– Healthcare and Materials Science Applications: Significant focus on quantum’s potential in healthcare through quantum sensing (already showing promise in hospitals) and drug discovery through molecular simulation. Materials science emerged as a key near-term application, particularly for developing better lubricants, fertilizers, and carbon sequestration materials.

– Global Quantum Divide and Inclusion: Discussion of the risk of creating a “quantum divide” between countries with established quantum programs and those without. Only 24 of 193 UN member states had quantum initiatives as of two years ago, raising concerns about equitable access to quantum benefits across healthcare, finance, and manufacturing.

– Post-Quantum Cryptography Urgency: Strong emphasis on the immediate need for organizations to prepare for quantum’s threat to current encryption methods. Panelists stressed that businesses and governments should begin transitioning to quantum-resistant cryptography now, comparing it to a “Y2K moment” that could arrive within 5-10 years.

– Technical Challenges and Competing Approaches: Detailed discussion of the engineering challenges in scaling quantum systems, including qubit quality, materials control, and fabrication processes. Different approaches (superconducting qubits, neutral atoms, etc.) were debated, with IBM defending their superconducting approach while others advocated for multi-platform strategies.

Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment of quantum technology’s current state, future potential, and practical implications for businesses and governments. The panel sought to balance realistic timelines with the transformative potential of quantum computing, while addressing concerns about global equity and preparedness.

Overall Tone:

The tone was cautiously optimistic and pragmatic throughout. Panelists demonstrated excitement about quantum’s potential while maintaining realistic expectations about timelines and challenges. The conversation was collaborative rather than competitive, with experts acknowledging each other’s contributions and agreeing on key points like the urgency of post-quantum cryptography preparation. The tone remained consistently professional and forward-looking, emphasizing the need for immediate preparation despite quantum’s future arrival.

Speakers

– Jennifer Schenker – Editor-in-Chief of The Innovator (moderator)

– Lene Oddershede – Chief Scientific Officer, Planetary Science and Technology at Novo Nordisk Foundation

– Doreen Bogdan-Martin – Secretary General, International Telecommunications Union (Geneva)

– John Martinis – Professor Emeritus, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA; Nobel Prize winning physicist

– Arvind Krishna – Chairman and CEO of IBM

Additional speakers:

None – all speakers mentioned in the transcript are included in the provided speakers names list.

Full session report

Quantum Technologies: Navigating the Path from Promise to Practice

Comprehensive Summary of World Economic Forum Panel Discussion

Introduction and Context

This World Economic Forum panel discussion brought together leading voices from academia, industry, and international organisations to examine the current state and future trajectory of quantum technologies. Moderated by Jennifer Schenker, Editor-in-Chief of The Innovator, the conversation featured Nobel Prize-winning physicist John Martinis (Professor Emeritus, University of California, Santa Barbara), Arvind Krishna (Chairman and CEO of IBM), Lene Oddershede (Chief Scientific Officer, Planetary Science and Technology at Novo Nordisk Foundation), and Doreen Bogdan-Martin (Secretary General, International Telecommunications Union).

The discussion unfolded against a backdrop of significant global investment exceeding $40 billion in quantum technologies, with 2025 declared as the International Year of Quantum by the UN. The panel explored both the transformative potential and immediate challenges facing this emerging field, balancing technical insights with practical implications for businesses, governments, and society at large.

The Quantum Foundation: From Theory to Application

John Martinis provided crucial historical context about his foundational research, explaining how his thesis work demonstrated that quantum mechanics principles could be applied to macroscopic systems. As he described it, his work showed that “you can take quantum mechanics and apply it to macroscopic systems,” laying the groundwork for today’s quantum computing efforts. This breakthrough enabled the development of practical quantum computers by proving that quantum effects could be harnessed in larger, engineered systems.

Krishna acknowledged Martinis’ foundational contributions when he joined the panel, highlighting the importance of this early work in enabling current quantum computing developments. The discussion revealed how quantum computing represents what Krishna called “a third kind of mathematics”—distinct from the algebra performed by traditional computers and the matrix mathematics of GPUs used in artificial intelligence. This fundamental difference in computational approach, involving Lie algebras, positions quantum computers to solve problems that are intractable for classical systems.

Krishna emphasised a pivotal insight: the path to commercially valuable quantum computers is now primarily an engineering challenge rather than a scientific one. As he put it, “I think the science is largely done… it’s now an engineering problem.” This distinction suggests that whilst fundamental quantum principles are well understood, the focus has shifted to scaling, optimisation, and practical implementation—challenges with more predictable timelines than pure scientific breakthroughs.

Current Applications and Near-Term Promise

The panel identified quantum sensing as the most mature quantum application currently delivering practical benefits. Oddershede noted that quantum sensing applications are already functioning in healthcare settings, though she did not provide specific technical details about these implementations.

Looking ahead, the experts projected a 2-5 year timeline for quantum advantage in specific computing applications. Krishna projected that the first commercially valuable quantum computers would emerge around 2026-2027, focusing initially on three key areas: materials science, financial optimisation, and molecular simulation. These applications were selected because they have proven algorithms and address problems where quantum computers offer clear advantages over classical systems.

In materials science, Krishna outlined specific applications including developing better lubricants, improving oil extraction efficiency, creating more effective fertilizers, and advancing carbon sequestration materials. He also mentioned the potential for discovering new biochemical processes, such as understanding how bacteria fix nitrogen using photons.

For healthcare applications through molecular simulation, Oddershede suggested that “even within a year, we will see supremacy” for small molecules, specifically mentioning the potential with 50 logical qubits “if we choose smartly.” This timeline reflects the natural fit between quantum computing’s strengths in simulating quantum systems and the quantum nature of molecular interactions in biological processes.

Technical Challenges and Competing Approaches

The discussion revealed significant complexity in quantum system development, with Martinis noting that quantum computing requires “getting approximately 100 different technical aspects right simultaneously.” This multifaceted challenge involves optimisation trade-offs across materials control, fabrication processes, error correction, and system scalability.

A notable technical debate emerged regarding quantum computing approaches. Krishna advocated for superconducting qubits, citing speed advantages. When Martinis mentioned that his approach might be 1,000 times slower, Krishna responded that superconducting systems could be “1,000 to 10,000 times faster” than alternative approaches. He argued that unless competing technologies offer significant advantages in other metrics, the speed advantage of superconducting systems would prove decisive.

However, Oddershede presented a contrasting strategy through her work with the Novo Nordisk Foundation’s Quantum Foundry initiative. She advocated for simultaneous development of multiple quantum platforms—superconducting qubits, neutral atoms, and other approaches. Her rationale centered on the complementary strengths of different technologies and the potential for hybrid systems.

The quality versus quantity debate proved particularly illuminating. Oddershede emphasised that qubit quality control is more critical than quantity, requiring precise material control and scalability. Krishna highlighted a fundamental paradox: “a more perfect qubit is going to be harder to control”—the quantum properties that make qubits useful also make them difficult to manipulate.

The panel also discussed the transition from current “artisanal” fabrication methods to semiconductor-style manufacturing, which will be crucial for scaling quantum systems to commercial viability.

Global Quantum Divide and Inclusion Challenges

A significant portion of the discussion addressed the emerging global quantum divide. Bogdan-Martin noted that “30-plus countries now investing” in quantum technologies, but this still leaves many nations without quantum strategies, raising concerns about equitable access to quantum benefits.

Bogdan-Martin outlined the ITU’s efforts to address this challenge through policy coordination, standards development, and skills building initiatives. The organisation is working with 300+ experts across 100+ organisations to develop quantum communication standards.

The panel explored various mechanisms for global inclusion. Martinis suggested that smaller countries could focus on theoretical research and basic science funding, noting that breakthrough contributions could come from unexpected sources. Krishna proposed that cloud-based access models might enable developing countries to access quantum technologies simultaneously with developed nations, potentially avoiding the infrastructure gaps that characterised previous technological transitions.

However, the discussion also acknowledged tensions between global inclusion and security concerns. Krishna noted that whilst international collaboration is beneficial, certain quantum technologies with potential security implications face legitimate sharing restrictions.

Post-Quantum Cryptography: An Urgent Priority

The most urgent near-term concern discussed was post-quantum cryptography. The panel reached consensus that current encryption methods will become vulnerable to quantum computers within 5-10 years, requiring immediate preparation for new security standards.

Krishna characterised this as a “Y2K moment,” providing a relatable analogy for the scale of preparation required. However, unlike Y2K’s fixed deadline, the quantum cryptography threat has a more uncertain timeline, making preparation both more challenging and more critical.

The technical solution pathway is established. Krishna mentioned that NIST conducted a competition with 200 submissions and selected 4 lattice cryptography alternatives that are ready for implementation. The ITU is developing standards for quantum-resistant security.

Oddershede advocated for mandatory adoption of post-quantum cryptography standards, arguing that voluntary recommendations are insufficient given the systemic risks. She noted that weak links in critical systems could compromise everyone’s security, necessitating regulatory requirements.

Organisational Preparation Strategies

The panel provided clear guidance for organisations preparing for the quantum era. Krishna emphasised that companies should begin learning quantum programming and identifying relevant use cases immediately, even before full-scale quantum computers become available.

The workforce development challenge emerged as particularly critical. Bogdan-Martin noted the need for training across multiple disciplines to build quantum-ready organisations. This broad skill requirement reflects quantum computing’s interdisciplinary nature.

Oddershede mentioned the collaborative approach being taken through initiatives like the tripartite agreement between the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Gates Foundation, and Wellcome Trust, demonstrating how organisations can pool resources for quantum development.

Individual algorithms must be developed for specific problems and sectors, requiring multi-year adoption journeys even after quantum computers become available. This timeline suggests that organisations beginning preparation now will be better positioned to capitalise on quantum advantages when they emerge.

Technical Approaches and Future Directions

The discussion revealed different perspectives on optimal development strategies. Krishna’s approach focuses on betting heavily on superconducting qubits based on their speed advantages, while acknowledging this represents a calculated risk.

Oddershede’s multi-platform strategy through the Quantum Foundry reflects a different risk management approach, developing multiple technologies simultaneously to leverage their complementary strengths.

Martinis, now working with his own company, represents yet another approach to quantum development, though specific details of his current work were not extensively discussed.

The panel noted the importance of moving from physical qubits to logical qubits, with Oddershede specifically mentioning the significance of achieving 50 logical qubits for certain applications.

International Coordination and Standards

Bogdan-Martin outlined the ITU’s role in developing international standards for quantum technologies, particularly in quantum communications. The organisation is working to create technical frameworks that can be implemented globally while respecting regional security and policy requirements.

The challenge of balancing international cooperation with national security concerns emerged as a recurring theme. While collaboration can accelerate development, certain quantum technologies require careful consideration of sharing restrictions.

Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion revealed quantum technologies at a critical transition point—moving from scientific research to engineering implementation, with commercial applications emerging within the current decade. The panel’s expertise spanning academia, industry, and international policy provided multiple perspectives on both opportunities and challenges ahead.

The conversation demonstrated both areas of agreement—such as the urgency of post-quantum cryptography preparation and the general timeline for quantum advantage—and areas of strategic difference, particularly regarding technical approaches and development strategies.

The overarching message was clear: whilst fully mature quantum computers may still be years away, the quantum era has already begun. Organisations, governments, and individuals who begin preparation now will be best positioned to benefit from quantum advantages whilst protecting against quantum threats. The discussion successfully balanced realistic expectations with transformative potential, providing actionable guidance for navigating the quantum transition in the coming decade.

Session transcript

Jennifer Schenker

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 Lina Odershera, who is Chief Scientific Officer, Planetary Science and Technology at Novo Nordisk Foundation.

We have Doreen Bogdan-Martin, Secretary General, International Telecommunications Union out of Geneva. We have John Martinis, 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, health care, 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 dollars, 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, two major players in the quantum race.

So John, give us your

John Martinis

big-picture perspective on quantum’s potential. Well, I got started in quantum way back in graduate school. The 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 Deveree 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 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 the technology.

And to get this to work, I would say that nature was very kind to us, so that although we had those initial experiments, we were able to figure out, 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’s 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 I think it’s going to continue with superconducting qubits on this road for many years to come.

Jennifer Schenker

Okay, thank you. Let me turn to you now, Lina. So where 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 now in the near future, I would say quantum sensing is likely the quantum technology to make the largest impact in healthcare and diagnostics. So quantum sensing can be used for detecting cardiac diseases, can be used for detecting malnutrition, can be used for detecting brain activity, metabolic dysfunctions, etc.

Lene Oddershede

So already today, 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, tenth 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 timescales 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 an important impact, and then we use the new computers that are just emerging right now, there’s like maybe three or four companies that have these capacities, then I would say even within a year, we will see supremacy of 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 a huge acceleration of drug discovery, for instance.

Jennifer Schenker

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?

John Martinis

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 would… 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, you know, 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 of time to kind of develop it and understand.

Jennifer Schenker

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…

Just one… Sorry to interrupt. Sure.

John Martinis

Everyone wants to be there first. But if you’re not first, but you have a good effort in your 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.

Jennifer Schenker

And 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 country’s 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 health care, 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.

Doreen Bogdan-Martin

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 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, I’m 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, and 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, a CDMA phone, and it was because we had fragmented policy approaches.

We had a fragmentation when it came 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, again, coming 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-IC, we have about 40 standards linked to quantum communication networks, working with some 300 experts, 100-plus organizations, so I think 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 all are also building a quantum future and what kinds of skills will young people need.

Jennifer Schenker

So we’ve talked about, you know, the challenge of making sure that every country, you know, can work on this 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 coming, you know, in the next 10 years and we’ve been saying that for longer than 10 years, right?

But now it’s getting closer, but there are still significant technological challenges. So Lina, which challenges do you think are the most difficult and how far are we from the quantum advantage?

Lene Oddershede

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, a certain positioning, et cetera.

How reproducibly 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… many things. There are maybe four or five main ones and what I have in my mind

John Martinis

about a hundred things I have to get right building our qubits. And this is this is difficult. All systems are and 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 300 millimeters 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.

Jennifer Schenker

Okay, thanks. Arvind, thank you so much. So glad to have you here.

So, we were just talking about some of the technical challenges to reaching the quantum advantage. As 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, et cetera? When are we going to get there?

Arvind Krishna

Thank you. I’ll answer your question in 30 seconds, but I first have to acknowledge, maybe you covered it before I came, but Dr. Martinis 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? I’m probably in the middle of that.

Some others have said 10 to 15, and then they had to walk their words back, but maybe it’s closer than that. The reason always is you have to first convince, and I think it’s authentic, that the science community, not every scientist, whatever you call it, 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, I’m going to make you a computer, and I’m going to make you a computer, and I’m going to make you a computer, and I’m going to make you a computer.

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 Dr. 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, when 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.

Jennifer Schenker

Okay, so which industries from IBM’s viewpoint, which industries will see the most impact first? Are some industries benefiting now?

Arvind Krishna

I don’t think anybody’s 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 we 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 five 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 harbor wash 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’s 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.

Jennifer Schenker

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 individual algorithms have to be developed for specific problems and specific sectors and those will be ready at different times, correct?

Arvind Krishna

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 two to three years after that. So it kind of points to the timeline you just laid out.

Jennifer Schenker

Yes, okay. So, John, let me turn back to you. Is there a risk that the commercialization pressure could distort scientific priorities in quantum research?

And what role do you think academia could still play in a space that is increasingly dominated by commercial companies?

John Martinis

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 companies. And there’s a good reason for that, and we understand that.

And then the academic community can add to some knowledge in doing that. And that’s what’s happening with the… superconducting qubits, I think in other qubit modalities too.

It’s a very natural endpoint. I think if we could share a little bit more information, then 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. Nina, do you

Lene Oddershede

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 supporting 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 not push the engineers to go down that route because that’s not where we want to go. We want to go towards fault tolerancy.

So therefore, it could be a risk if you deviate and go towards an early win in terms of customer commercialization, then you don’t get like the big win, right? So that’s why we, as a foundation, have decided we will protect the researchers and engineers so 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 be really happy about this, that they don’t all the time need to satisfy, try to attract new investors, etc., but can really laser focus.

Jennifer Schenker

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 IBM’s approach, why you’ve chosen that route, and then we’ll have a discussion about the other approaches.

Arvind Krishna

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 the two, three, five year roadmap. And there’s a huge number of those. So look, 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’ve got to have them interact with each other. So there is a golden mean somewhere that each of these technologies has to get to. 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 normal 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 you call libraries in today’s computer world.

You’ve got to think about, is this machine self-tuning? Because we know that the coherence time, is it milliseconds or seconds or minutes? It’s not more than that for the foreseeable future.

Does it get back to us? and all of the other states which can be used. You’ve 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 temperature just above absolute zero, superconducting, which is a macro architecture as opposed to a micro at the 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 are making a big bet on one approach. I’m very clear about that, but that doesn’t mean that we are completely blind to other approaches should they come.

Jennifer Schenker

Okay. And what I liked about your discussion

John Martinis

is you really talked about how there’s many parts that you have to get right at the same time. I mean, one example of superconducting qubits is they’re fast. Yes.

Okay, much faster than, say, other atom-based approaches. And, of course, you have to get the quantum computer to work well, but you’re always looking for speed, 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 they’re 1,000 to 10,000 times slower. So, okay, unless they’re 10,000 times better,

Arvind Krishna

the speed you get on the first approach is going to win.

John Martinis

But we have to get lots of things to work well. That’s…

Jennifer Schenker

We all… Okay, so what’s your point of view on the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches?

Lene Oddershede

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 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, et cetera. Okay, so assuming that the technical…

Jennifer Schenker

Did you… Oh, I’m sorry, Doreen.

Doreen Bogdan-Martin

I just wanted 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, 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’s 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.

Arvind Krishna

Could I jump in? 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.

Doreen Bogdan-Martin

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 X.509 standard, which is the security standard for digital, to take into account quantum, right? Because one of the biggest vulnerabilities is the encryption.

So we want to make sure that that is not going to expose, you know… Actually, I think as a company on that one, on this post-quantum cryptography and certificates,

Arvind Krishna

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.

Lene Oddershede

Right. Maybe to that point. So we in the Novo Nordisk Foundation, we’re 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 have a common goal of making technologies available to, say, the global south.

Of course, we do this in a responsible manner. Also, there’s, as I say, make a 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 won’t. will be lagging some years behind, like, in the countries where they develop, 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 a second mover. The advantage of being first mover is yes, but then you also make all the mistakes.

If you’re a second mover, then you can learn from everybody else’s mistakes and you can simply go faster.

Arvind Krishna

Actually, I think the Global South will get it at the same time, because everybody is going to give them as remote access. We’ve 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.

Jennifer Schenker

Maybe we should spend another minute or two on post-quantum cryptography 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, too.

Arvind Krishna

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 10 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’ll happen, but people should be prepared that maybe by 2030, maybe by 2035, at the… and others. And 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.

John Martinis

And I completely agree with the time period, you know, five to ten years. And that we should, preparing now, that it could happen in five to ten years. And we have to start preparing now to switch over into something that’s safe.

Arvind Krishna

By the way, 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.

Doreen Bogdan-Martin

Yeah, absolutely.

Lene Oddershede

I don’t know if I can have a wish to you, 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.

Arvind Krishna

Finance, healthcare, government, I mean, like, do I really want my messages being listened

Jennifer Schenker

to by somebody? Exactly.

Lene Oddershede

So, it should really be a requirement that you need to live up to those standards. That’s what I meant by advocacy.

Doreen Bogdan-Martin

Yeah, I know, I get it, I get it. I mean, just a couple of 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 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 be looking at.

When it comes to the standards piece, so our standards are voluntary. 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 take further in terms of.

Arvind Krishna

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 EU that says that every agency has to think about what they’re going to do in the next two years.

So they’ve got to come back with explicit plans. But that’s confined to government right now, not yet outside of government.

Jennifer Schenker

So 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 one or two things that every company, every country should be doing over the next one to two years to prepare for the age of quantum?

Arvind Krishna

To me, it’s about, because it’s a new kind of math, just like I would say we could predict the year 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 a 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 a 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.

John Martinis

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

Lene Oddershede

Okay, great Lima. I actually much agree with Krishna in that I think companies should simply, you know, just start playing around with 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

Doreen Bogdan-Martin

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 Marvin 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 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

Jennifer Schenker

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 equity.

And with that I’d like to thank our panelists. Thank you very much. Thank you.

John Martinis

Speech speed

153 words per minute

Speech length

Post-Quantum Cryptography Urgency

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Arvind Krishna
– Lene Oddershede
– Doreen Bogdan-Martin

Agreed on

Post-quantum cryptography urgency and NIST standards adoption

Investment in basic science and theoretical quantum research offers opportunities even for smaller countries

Explanation

Martinis suggests that countries with limited resources can still contribute meaningfully to quantum development by focusing on theoretical research and fundamental science problems. He argues that having the right theoretical physicist could lead to important discoveries that impact the entire field, making this an accessible entry point for smaller nations.

Evidence

Notes that theoretical problems exist beyond the 2-5 year roadmap and that the right person could invent something quite important

Major discussion point

Preparation Strategies for Organizations

Topics

Development | Economic

Disagreed with

– Arvind Krishna

Disagreed on

Information sharing vs. security constraints in quantum development

Lene Oddershede

Speech speed

164 words per minute

Speech length

Preparation Strategies for Organizations

Topics

Cybersecurity | Economic

Agreed with

– Arvind Krishna
– Doreen Bogdan-Martin

Agreed on

Need for immediate organizational preparation and learning

Arvind Krishna

Speech speed

174 words per minute

Speech length

2258 words

Speech time

774 seconds

First useful quantum computers for commercial value will emerge around 2026-2027, representing an engineering rather than science challenge

Explanation

Krishna argues that quantum computing has moved from fundamental science questions to engineering implementation challenges. He predicts that quantum computers capable of performing tasks that classical computers cannot will emerge in 2026-2027, with commercially viable applications following 1-2 years later as costs decrease and error rates improve.

Evidence

Distinguishes between science problems (quantum states over long distances) and engineering problems (confining quantum states in semiconductors), emphasizes that engineering problems can be solved with sufficient resources and talent

Major discussion point

Quantum Technology’s Current State and Potential

Topics

Economic | Infrastructure

Agreed with

– John Martinis
– Lene Oddershede

Agreed on

Quantum computing timeline and commercial viability within 5-10 years

Superconducting qubits offer speed advantages of 1,000 to 10,000 times faster than other approaches

Explanation

Krishna defends IBM’s choice of superconducting qubits by highlighting their significant speed advantage over alternative quantum computing approaches. He argues that unless other approaches are 10,000 times better in other metrics, the speed advantage of superconducting qubits will make them the winning technology for practical quantum computing applications.

Evidence

Disagreed with

– John Martinis

Disagreed on

Information sharing vs. security constraints in quantum development

NIST-approved lattice cryptography alternatives are well-understood and ready for implementation

Explanation

Krishna explains that quantum-resistant cryptography solutions already exist and are well-validated by the global cryptographic community. He describes NIST’s rigorous 10-year competition process that selected four robust alternatives from 200 submissions, based on 30-year-old lattice cryptography mathematics, providing confidence in their security against quantum attacks.

Evidence

Details NIST’s 10-year competition with 200 initial submissions narrowed to 4 approved methods, mentions lattice cryptography’s 30-year mathematical foundation

Major discussion point

Post-Quantum Cryptography Urgency

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– John Martinis
– Lene Oddershede
– Doreen Bogdan-Martin

Agreed on

Post-quantum cryptography urgency and NIST standards adoption

Companies should start learning quantum programming and identifying relevant use cases now

Explanation

Krishna recommends that organizations begin preparing for quantum computing by developing internal expertise and identifying potential applications, even before large-scale quantum computers are available. He emphasizes learning the new mathematical approaches and mapping between current and future computing paradigms to be ready when quantum systems become commercially viable.

Evidence

Describes quantum computing as doing a ‘third kind of math’ beyond traditional algebra and matrix math, emphasizes the years needed to adapt to new mathematical approaches

Major discussion point

Preparation Strategies for Organizations

Topics

Economic | Development

Agreed with

– Lene Oddershede
– Doreen Bogdan-Martin

Agreed on

Need for immediate organizational preparation and learning

Jennifer Schenker

Speech speed

113 words per minute

Speech length

1199 words

Speech time

634 seconds

Global investment exceeding $40 billion demonstrates strong momentum behind quantum technologies

Explanation

Schenker presents the scale of global investment in quantum technologies as evidence of the field’s momentum and potential impact. She notes that this $40 billion figure represents only public sector investment, which is complemented by additional private sector research and venture funding, indicating broad confidence in quantum technology’s transformative potential.

Evidence

Cites $40 billion in public sector investment plus additional private sector and venture funding

Major discussion point

Quantum Technology’s Current State and Potential

Topics

Economic | Development

Only 24 out of 193 UN member states had quantum initiatives as of two years ago, creating potential global divide

Explanation

Schenker highlights the significant disparity in quantum technology development globally, noting that less than 13% of UN member states had established quantum programs as of two years ago. She warns that this gap could lead to substantial imbalances in critical sectors like healthcare, finance, and manufacturing, similar to previous technology divides.

Evidence

References World Economic Forum report showing 24 out of 193 UN member states with quantum initiatives, mentions UN proclamation of 2025 as year of quantum

Major discussion point

Global Quantum Divide and Inclusion

Topics

Development | Economic

Doreen Bogdan-Martin

Speech speed

171 words per minute

Speech length

Post-Quantum Cryptography Urgency

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– John Martinis
– Arvind Krishna
– Lene Oddershede

Agreed on

Post-quantum cryptography urgency and NIST standards adoption

Workforce development in physics, engineering, and software development is essential for quantum readiness

Explanation

Bogdan-Martin emphasizes that preparing for the quantum era requires significant investment in human capital across multiple disciplines. She advocates for educational initiatives that go beyond traditional STEM fields, even suggesting that philosophy majors may play important roles in quantum technology development, highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of quantum applications.

Evidence

References session discussion about need for philosophy majors in quantum field, emphasizes need for physicists, engineers, and software developers

Major discussion point

Preparation Strategies for Organizations

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Agreed with

– Arvind Krishna
– Lene Oddershede

Agreed on

Need for immediate organizational preparation and learning

Agreements

Agreement points

Quantum computing timeline and commercial viability within 5-10 years

Speakers

– John Martinis
– Arvind Krishna
– Lene Oddershede

Arguments

Current encryption will be vulnerable to quantum computers within 5-10 years, requiring immediate preparation

First useful quantum computers for commercial value will emerge around 2026-2027, representing an engineering rather than science challenge

Healthcare applications through quantum sensing are already emerging, with molecular simulation capabilities expected within a year

Summary

All three technical experts agree that quantum computing will achieve practical commercial applications within the next 5-10 years, with some applications emerging even sooner

Topics

Economic | Infrastructure | Development

Post-quantum cryptography urgency and NIST standards adoption

Speakers

– John Martinis
– Arvind Krishna
– Lene Oddershede
– Doreen Bogdan-Martin

Arguments

Current encryption will be vulnerable to quantum computers within 5-10 years, requiring immediate preparation

NIST-approved lattice cryptography alternatives are well-understood and ready for implementation

Mandatory adoption of post-quantum cryptography standards should be required, not just recommended

ITU is developing standards for quantum-resistant security, including X.509 certificate updates

Summary

All speakers agree that organizations must immediately begin transitioning to quantum-resistant encryption, with established NIST standards providing viable solutions

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Need for immediate organizational preparation and learning

Speakers

– Arvind Krishna
– Lene Oddershede
– Doreen Bogdan-Martin

Arguments

Companies should start learning quantum programming and identifying relevant use cases now

Organizations must prepare for quantum-enabled decryption threats to current data security

Workforce development in physics, engineering, and software development is essential for quantum readiness

Summary

Speakers unanimously agree that organizations cannot wait for quantum maturity but must begin preparation, learning, and workforce development immediately

Topics

Economic | Development | Sociocultural

Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Speed advantage of superconducting qubits over alternative approaches

Speakers

– Arvind Krishna
– John Martinis
– Lene Oddershede

Arguments

Superconducting qubits offer speed advantages of 1,000 to 10,000 times faster than other approaches

Quantum computing requires getting approximately 100 different technical aspects right simultaneously, with optimization trade-offs

Multiple quantum platforms should be developed simultaneously as each has different capabilities and optimal use cases

Explanation

Despite Oddershede advocating for multiple platform development, there was unexpected consensus on the significant speed advantages of superconducting qubits, with even the multi-platform advocate acknowledging their speed benefits

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic

Global accessibility through cloud-based quantum computing

Speakers

– Arvind Krishna
– Doreen Bogdan-Martin

Arguments

Global South countries may access quantum technologies simultaneously through remote/cloud access models

International collaboration through standards organizations can help share knowledge while respecting security constraints

Explanation

Unexpected agreement that developing countries might not be left behind in quantum access due to cloud delivery models, despite concerns about global quantum divides

Topics

Development | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged on three critical areas: the 5-10 year timeline for quantum commercial viability, the urgent need for post-quantum cryptography adoption, and the necessity for immediate organizational preparation. Technical experts agreed on fundamental challenges while policy leaders aligned on inclusion strategies.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for coordinated global action. The agreement among technical and policy experts suggests a mature understanding of quantum technology’s trajectory and requirements, enabling more effective preparation strategies across sectors and nations.

Differences

Different viewpoints

Quantum computing approach – single platform vs. multiple platforms

Speakers

– Arvind Krishna
– Lene Oddershede

Arguments

Superconducting qubits offer speed advantages of 1,000 to 10,000 times faster than other approaches

Multiple quantum platforms should be developed simultaneously as each has different capabilities and optimal use cases

Summary

Krishna advocates for focusing on superconducting qubits due to their significant speed advantages, while Oddershede promotes developing four different quantum platforms simultaneously to leverage complementary strengths of different technologies

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic

Information sharing vs. security constraints in quantum development

Speakers

– John Martinis
– Arvind Krishna

Arguments

Investment in basic science and theoretical quantum research offers opportunities even for smaller countries

Global South countries may access quantum technologies simultaneously through remote/cloud access models

Summary

Martinis suggests more information sharing could help the field progress faster and improve global competitiveness, while Krishna acknowledges economic realities and security concerns that limit sharing of core technologies, especially those with potential weapon applications

Topics

Development | Cybersecurity

Unexpected differences

Timeline for quantum advantage achievement

Speakers

– Arvind Krishna
– Lene Oddershede

Arguments

First useful quantum computers for commercial value will emerge around 2026-2027, representing an engineering rather than science challenge

Healthcare applications through quantum sensing are already emerging, with molecular simulation capabilities expected within a year

Explanation

While both are optimistic about near-term quantum applications, they focus on different aspects and timelines. Krishna provides a more conservative 2026-2027 timeline for general commercial quantum computing, while Oddershede suggests specific healthcare applications through molecular simulation could emerge within a year, indicating different perspectives on what constitutes meaningful quantum advantage

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The panel showed remarkable consensus on fundamental issues with only minor disagreements on implementation approaches and technical strategies

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high implications for strategic decision-making. While speakers agreed on quantum technology’s transformative potential, timeline urgency, and need for preparation, their different approaches to technical development (single vs. multiple platforms) and global inclusion strategies could significantly impact resource allocation and international cooperation in quantum development

Partial agreements

Development | Legal and regulatory

Takeaways

Key takeaways

Quantum technologies are transitioning from science problems to engineering challenges, with commercial quantum computers expected around 2026-2027

Post-quantum cryptography implementation is urgent – current encryption will be vulnerable within 5-10 years and organizations must prepare now

Quantum sensing is already delivering practical healthcare applications with prototypes functioning in hospitals worldwide

First commercial quantum applications will focus on simple materials/molecules, finance optimization, and specific algorithmic problems rather than general computing

A global quantum divide exists with only 24 of 193 UN countries having quantum strategies, requiring coordinated policy and standards development

Organizations should begin quantum workforce development and use case identification immediately, even before full-scale quantum computers arrive

Multiple quantum computing approaches should be pursued simultaneously as each has different advantages and optimal applications

Speed advantages of superconducting qubits (1,000-10,000x faster than alternatives) may be decisive in commercial viability

Resolutions and action items

ITU to continue developing quantum communication standards with 300+ experts across 100+ organizations

ITU to advocate for mandatory post-quantum cryptography adoption in critical sectors like banking and healthcare

Companies should start learning quantum programming and identifying relevant use cases within 1-2 years

Countries should invest in quantum science education and workforce development in physics, engineering, and software

Organizations must implement NIST-approved post-quantum cryptography standards to prepare for quantum decryption threats

ITU to continue Quantum World Tour and Quantum for Good initiatives to promote global awareness and inclusion

Unresolved issues

Which specific quantum computing approach (superconducting, neutral atoms, etc.) will ultimately prove most commercially viable

How to balance technology sharing for global benefit against national security concerns around quantum decryption capabilities

Whether fault-tolerant quantum computers can be achieved within the projected timelines given current materials and fabrication challenges

How to ensure Global South countries aren’t left behind in quantum development despite remote access possibilities

What specific regulatory frameworks will be needed to mandate post-quantum cryptography adoption

How to scale quantum workforce development globally when expertise is currently concentrated in few countries

Suggested compromises

Develop quantum technologies on multiple platforms simultaneously rather than betting on single approaches

Share quantum knowledge in areas like standards, algorithms, and safety while protecting core technologies with security implications

Allow Global South access through cloud/remote quantum computing services rather than requiring local quantum infrastructure

Focus international collaboration on non-sensitive layers of the quantum technology stack while restricting sharing of core quantum computing capabilities

This creates urgency around post-quantum cryptography by providing specific timelines and a relatable analogy. The Y2K comparison is particularly effective because it references a known preparation challenge that was successfully managed.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from quantum opportunities to quantum threats, emphasizing immediate preparation needs. It led to concrete discussions about standards, regulations, and the practical steps organizations need to take now.

Overall assessment

Explanation

Bogdan-Martin emphasized the need to invest in training physicists, engineers, software developers, and even philosophy majors for the quantum workforce, but specific strategies and curricula need further development.

Disclaimer: This is not an official session record. DiploAI generates these resources from audiovisual recordings, and they are presented as-is, including potential errors. Due to logistical challenges, such as discrepancies in audio/video or transcripts, names may be misspelled. We strive for accuracy to the best of our ability.