StateScoop Interviews Mauritz Kop About Ohio House Bill 650 on Quantum Technology

When a statehouse starts asking serious questions about quantum computing, something has shifted. StateScoop—the Washington outlet that covers state and local government technology—has interviewed Mauritz Kop, Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, about Ohio House Bill 650: legislation, passed unanimously by the Ohio House and now before the Senate, that would create a Frontier Technologies and Quantum Commission to study quantum computing, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and robotics, and report recommendations to the General Assembly by the end of 2026.

A statehouse turns to the quantum age

The commission would seat members of both chambers and draw on outside experts—an institutional answer to a structural problem. Emerging technologies now advance faster than traditional legislative cycles, and the gap between innovation and regulation widens every session a legislature waits. Ohio's answer is to build standing expertise before quantum systems are woven into procurement, infrastructure, and security frameworks, rather than legislating after the fact. It is, as Kop puts it in the interview, the role of state commissions to serve as "an essential laboratory for anticipatory governance."

Three messages from the interview

Kop's advice to Ohio distills into three propositions. First, anticipatory governance works: states that organize knowledge early write better rules later. Second, post-quantum cryptography migration is "really a country wide effort"—state agencies hold health records, tax data, and election infrastructure whose confidentiality must outlive the arrival of cryptographically relevant quantum machines, and migration timelines are measured in years, not budget cycles. Third, ethics embedded smartly in regulation does not slow innovation—it propels it, by giving industry predictable rules and the public reasons to trust what is being built.

Why state-level quantum policy matters now

Ohio is not moving alone. California, Texas, New Mexico, and Maryland have each launched quantum initiatives of their own, and the federal picture is evolving in parallel—terrain Kop knows from advising the U.S. Department of State on quantum technology and foreign policy strategy. The emerging pattern is federalism doing what it does best: fifty laboratories testing governance designs for a technology whose economic and security consequences will be national. The full StateScoop article includes Kop's remarks on commissions, cryptography, and the innovation case for ethics—and this post walks through its key arguments.

Meer lezen

Quantum Technology, Governance, PolicyHenry Quentir19 maart 2026Mauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Policy, Regulation, Stanford RQT, Quantum Technology, Standards, StateScoop, Ohio House Bill 650, Post-Quantum Cryptography, Anticipatory Governance, State Legislation

CIGI Publishes Global Quantum Policy Brief by Mauritz Kop and Tracey Forrest

Waterloo, 5 February 2026—The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) has published a new policy brief, Global Quantum Governance: From Principles to Practice, authored by Mauritz Kop and Tracey Forrest. The brief is written for policy makers, regulators, standards bodies, and industry actors facing a practical transition: quantum technologies are moving from laboratory milestones toward deployment pathways where governance choices—especially around cybersecurity and cross-border infrastructure—become difficult to reverse.

Download the Policy Brief here: https://www.cigionline.org/documents/3746/PB_No.222_Kop_and_Forrest.pdf

Why this brief on quantum governance, and why now

The brief’s central timing claim is that near-term milestones—particularly post-quantum cryptography (PQC) migration and quantum networking—create a governance tipping point. After that point, certain security and societal harms may be costly (or impossible) to remediate. In the brief’s framing, PQC migration is not merely an engineering update; it is a “temporal rights and resilience” imperative because present-day decisions about crypto-agility, key life-cycle management, and data minimization determine whether sensitive data remains protected against future adversaries.

This urgency is paired with a structural diagnosis: national initiatives—including the EU’s proposed Quantum Act—are important, but insufficient on their own given quantum’s dual-use characteristics, global supply chains, and asymmetric capabilities across states and firms. The authors argue for a governance architecture that is “standards-first” and internationally coordinated, capable of sustaining what they call “security-sufficient openness,” and overseen by an International Quantum Agency.

The brief’s recommendations in practical terms

The brief concludes with a multi-pronged path “from principles to practice,” emphasizing four implementable priorities:

Strengthen foundations through standards and PQC execution: align cryptographic profiles across sectors; update procurement so crypto-agility, key life-cycle management, and “harvest now, decrypt later” mitigation become baseline requirements; and adopt “cryptographic resilience” via agile standards, testing, and incident playbooks.
Harmonize among allies: coordinate export controls, investment screening, and supply-chain security via mechanisms such as a proposed G7 Quantum Technology Point of Contact Group and narrowly scoped license-exception approaches in Five Eyes/AUKUS-style arrangements, while avoiding poorly designed measures that impose high compliance costs and chill benign collaboration.
Incentivize global collaboration and capacity building: federate national quantum clouds, SDG-oriented demonstrators, and regional test networks under common governance rules; and consider, longer-term, a “CERN for Quantum” that provides shared access anchored in transparency and equitable access, including for Global South partners.
Institutionalize foresight and bounded algorithmic regulation: resource international foresight capacities—within an IQA-type body or linked observatories—to update risk scenarios and stress-test legal frameworks, while experimenting with limited, well-governed AI-assisted monitoring and red-teaming to inform accountable human decision makers.

Takeaway for AIRecht’s readership

For legal and policy practitioners, the brief’s message is that quantum governance is entering a phase where operational artifacts—standards, benchmarks, procurement baselines, and interoperability profiles—will increasingly determine real-world rights, liabilities, and security outcomes. PQC migration and quantum networking are treated as the near-term proving ground for whether democracies can coordinate “security-sufficient openness” at scale.

For innovators and investors, the brief underscores that governance is not a brake on quantum progress but a design constraint that—if addressed early—can preserve global interoperability, reduce fragmentation, and support responsible diffusion of quantum capability without deepening geopolitical divides.

Meer lezen

AI Regulation in California: The Daiki SB-53 Recipe for the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act

California's Senate Bill 53—the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act—is the first U.S. law aimed squarely at frontier AI models through a compute threshold. Daiki, the AI and quantum governance company co-founded by Mauritz Kop, has published a practical recipe for complying with it, and for turning compliance into governance capital.

From voluntary principles to enforceable rules

SB-53 marks the moment U.S. artificial intelligence regulation acquired teeth: a compute threshold of 10²⁶ floating-point operations, a "large frontier developer" category above USD 500 million in revenue, published Frontier AI Frameworks, transparency reports on deployment, critical-incident reporting on a fifteen-day (sometimes twenty-four-hour) clock, whistleblower protections, and Attorney General penalties of up to USD 1 million per violation. Most obligations apply from January 1, 2026—which makes readiness a present-tense question, not a planning horizon. Kop has engaged U.S. lawmakers on these trajectories, including consulting Senator Mark Warner on AI and quantum technology policy.

Six steps to SB-53 readiness

The Daiki recipe walks an organization from applicability analysis (model inventory, compute estimation, revenue exposure) through a standards-based governance baseline on ISO/IEC 42001 and the NIST AI RMF, the design of an operational Frontier AI Framework, repeatable transparency-report workflows, incident and whistleblower pipelines, and finally harmonization with the EU AI Act and other regimes—one governance system, not a stack of statute-shaped silos.

Why boards should care

The deeper argument is strategic: a frontier-AI law built on evidence-generating transparency rewards organizations that can prove their safety practices. Boards that treat SB-53 as an opportunity to institutionalize frontier-grade discipline—rather than as an isolated burden—convert a regulatory deadline into trust, resilience, and license to operate.

Meer lezen

Artificial Intelligence, American Law, GovernanceMauritz Kop1 december 2025Mauritz Kop, AI, Regulation, Policy, Daiki, California SB-53, TFAIA, Frontier AI, AI Safety, ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF

Columbia Law Publishes 'Towards a European Quantum Act' Study by Mauritz Kop

In a landmark academic contribution, Columbia Law School’s prestigious Columbia Journal of European Law (CJEL) is publishing a comprehensive study by Mauritz Kop, a leading scholar in the field of quantum technology governance. Titled "Towards a European Quantum Act: A Two-Pillar Framework for Regulation and Innovation," the paper, published in Volume 31, Issue 1 (Fall 2025), presents a forward-looking and robust framework for the European Union to navigate the complexities of the quantum age. This timely publication in a top ranked journal guided by the intellectual stewardship of renowned Columbia Law professors Anu Bradford and George Bermann, is set to significantly influence the burgeoning transatlantic dialogue on the future of quantum technology.

The full citation for the paper is: Mauritz Kop – Towards a European Quantum Act: A Two-Pillar Framework for Regulation and Innovation (Sept 9, 2025), Volume 31, Issue No. 1, Columbia Journal of European Law, Columbia Law School (2025), final edition forthcoming. Pre-print versions are available on SSRN, arXiv, ResearchGate, the Website of the European Commission, and AIRecht.

The Columbia Journal of European Law: A Bastion of Transatlantic Legal Scholarship

Founded in 1994, the Columbia Journal of European Law has established itself as a leading academic publication dedicated to the study of European law from a transatlantic perspective. Its mission is to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas between scholars, practitioners, and policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic. The journal’s history is deeply intertwined with the development of the European Union and the evolving relationship between the EU and the United States. It has consistently published groundbreaking scholarship on a wide range of topics, from competition law and trade to human rights and constitutional law.

The journal's ranking among the top international and European law journals is a testament to its quality and influence. CJEL is currently the single most cited European law journal in the world. It is widely recognized for its rigorous academic standards and its commitment to publishing innovative and policy-relevant research. The journal’s association with Columbia Law School, one of the world’s leading law schools, further enhances its prestige. Columbia Law, located on Amsterdam Avenue in Morningside Heights, Manhattan, New York City, is an Ivy League institution consistantly ranked 3rd in the country - its name carries weight. You can find more information about the journal on its official website: https://cjel.law.columbia.edu/ and its Scholastica page: https://columbia-journal-of-european-law.scholasticahq.com/. For more on the journal's history, the Wikipedia page is a useful resource, and updates can be found on their LinkedIn profile.

CJEL Guided by Star Professors Anu Bradford and George Bermann

The intellectual rigor and policy relevance of Kop's study are a reflection of the Journal’s guidance and mentorship of two of Columbia Law School's most distinguished scholars: Anu Bradford and George Bermann.

Professor Bradford, the Henry L. Moses Professor of Law and International Organization, is a world-renowned expert on the "Brussels Effect," a term she coined to describe the European Union's unilateral power to regulate global markets. Her work has profoundly shaped our understanding of the EU's role in the world and its ability to set global standards for technology and other industries. Her insights into the EU’s regulatory power are clearly reflected in Kop’s proposal for a European Quantum Act.

Professor George Bermann is the Walter Gellhorn Professor of Law and the Jean Monnet Professor of European Union Law at Columbia Law School. A leading authority on European law, international arbitration, and comparative law, Professor Bermann has been instrumental in shaping the field of European law studies in the United States. His deep understanding of the intricacies of EU law and governance provides a solid foundation for Kop’s ambitious legislative proposal. The combined expertise of these two scholars has undoubtedly enriched the paper, ensuring its legal and political feasibility.

"Towards a European Quantum Act": A Two-Pillar Framework

Kop's paper argues that the European Union has a unique opportunity to shape the global governance of quantum technologies. He proposes a comprehensive "European Quantum Act" based on a two-pillar framework:

Pillar 1: Agile, NLF-Style Regulation: This pillar focuses on creating a flexible and adaptive regulatory framework, similar to the EU’s New Legislative Framework (NLF) for products. It would establish a risk-based approach to regulating quantum technologies, with stricter rules for high-risk applications and more flexibility for low-risk ones. This approach, Kop argues, would allow for innovation to flourish while ensuring that fundamental rights and safety are protected. A key element of this pillar is the "standards-first" philosophy, which prioritizes the development of technical standards as a primary mechanism for embedding democratic values into the very architecture of quantum technologies.

Pillar 2: Ambitious, Chips Act-Style Industrial Policy: This pillar calls for a proactive and ambitious industrial policy to support the development of a competitive and resilient European quantum ecosystem. Drawing inspiration from the U.S. and EU Chips Acts, Kop proposes a range of measures, including funding for research and development, support for startups and SMEs, and the creation of a European quantum infrastructure. This pillar aims to ensure that Europe can compete with the United States and China in the global quantum race.

A Standards-First Approach to Secure a Democratic Future

A central tenet of Kop's proposal is the "standards-first" approach. He argues that technical standards are not merely technical tools but are "vessels for values." By proactively shaping the standards for quantum technologies, the EU can embed its democratic values, such as privacy, fairness, and accountability, into the core of the technology. This approach would not only ensure that quantum technologies are developed and used in a responsible manner but would also give the EU a competitive advantage in the global market for trustworthy quantum systems.

This concept builds upon a recent study published in the prestigious journal Science, senior-authored by Kop. The study, titled "Quantum technology governance: A standards-first approach," was first-authored by Mateo Aboy of Cambridge University, with co-authorship from Urs Gasser, a leading scholar at the Technical University of Munich and Harvard University, and I. Glenn Cohen, Vice Dean of Harvard Law School and Faculty Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics. This foundational work, which can be accessed here at Science, provides the rigorous academic underpinnings for leveraging standards as a primary tool for responsible technology governance.

The paper, initiated by the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, suggests the creation of a Quantum Technology Quality Management System (QT-QMS), which would be developed in partnership with international bodies like ISO/IEC and IEEE. This system would provide a certifiable CE mark for quantum systems, signaling their compliance with EU standards and values.

Meer lezen

A Standards-First Future for Quantum Governance

Stanford, CA, August 7, 2025—A star team of leading interdisciplinary scholars from the Universities of Cambridge, Harvard, Munich, and Stanford has today published a landmark paper in the prestigious journal Science, outlining a novel and proactive framework for the global governance of quantum technologies. The Science Policy Forum piece titled "Quantum technology governance: A standards-first approach," was led by Professor Mateo Aboy of Cambridge with senior authorship by Mauritz Kop of Stanford. The paper introduces a "Standards-First" approach to regulation, emphasizing the urgent need for harmonized global standards and Quantum Technology Quality Management Systems (QT-QMS). The publication in Science is the culmination of years of dedicated research, synthesizing key takeaways from our annual Stanford RQT Conference and building on thought leadership established in outlets like Nature.

The paper, co-authored by a team representing the very model of interdisciplinary excellence we advocate for - including distinguished professors I. Glenn Cohen of Harvard Law School and Urs Gasser of the Technical University of Munich, addresses one of the most pressing challenges of the quantum age: how to foster innovation responsibly while mitigating the risks of geopolitical fragmentation and a potential "race to the bottom" in safety and ethics.

The core of our argument is the necessity of a "Standards-First" philosophy. Rather than waiting to apply reactive, and often conflicting, national regulations, we contend that the international community must prioritize baseline global standards before quantum technologies become deeply entrenched. This proactive approach aims to prevent a "quantum splinternet"—a fractured ecosystem of incompatible protocols and norms that could stifle innovation and exacerbate international tensions.

The Quantum Technology Quality Management System (QT-QMS)

Building on this, the paper introduces a practical framework: the Quantum Technology Quality Management System (QT-QMS). Drawing from established standards in high-consequence industries like medicine and aerospace, QT-QMS provides a clear, certifiable pathway for building safe and reliable quantum products. It translates high-level ethical principles into concrete, operational processes for risk management, lifecycle auditing, and supply chain integrity, simplifying future regulatory efforts.

As senior author Mauritz Kop notes, “Publishing this governance framework in a leading science journal like Science underscores our central message: getting quantum governance right is not just a task for lawyers and policymakers, but an essential, collaborative effort that must deeply involve the scientists and engineers who are building this future. We must embed our shared values directly into the architecture of quantum systems.”

The research provides a clear-eyed analysis of the current global landscape and presents a tangible roadmap for building a stable, interoperable, and responsible quantum ecosystem. By championing a global "race to the top" built on quality, safety, and trust, the framework proposed by Aboy, Gasser, Cohen, and Kop aims to ensure that the profound benefits of the quantum revolution are realized for all groups of our societies.

Charting the Future of Quantum Governance: Our Vision for a Standards-First Approach in Science

Our new Policy Forum piece in Science, titled "Quantum technology governance: A standards-first approach," represents a milestone for our team and for the broader conversation around the future of technology policy. It is the culmination of years of dedicated research, building upon a trajectory of thought leadership established through leading platforms like Nature, and with distinguished academic communities at Stanford, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Berkeley, Oxford, Cambridge, Waterloo, Copenhagen, the Max Planck Institute, and TUM Munchen. This work synthesizes key takeaways from our annual Stanford RQT Conference under Faculty leadership of Professor Mark Lemley, where global leaders convene to tackle these complex issues.

At its core, this piece is a testament to the power of interdisciplinary collaboration. It brought together an all-star team of scholars, each a recognized leader in their respective domain, to forge a unified vision for a more agile, innovative, and secure quantum future.

Meer lezen

Governance, Quantum Technology, Stanford RQTMauritz Kop7 augustus 2025Science, Nature, Quantum Governance, Standards-First, Certification, QT-QMS, Regulation, Stanford RQT, Cambridge, Harvard, Munchen, Mateo Aboy, I. Glenn Cohen, Urs Gasser, Mauritz Kop

EU AI Act Compliance for Global Enterprises: The Daiki Solution for Mandatory AI Governance

The European Union's AI Act has crossed the line from proposal to binding law, and its phased rollout is now an active clock rather than a distant horizon. Daiki, the AI and quantum governance company co-founded by Mauritz Kop, has published an account of what mandatory AI governance demands of global enterprises—and how an integrated, standards-based platform can convert that obligation into a strategic advantage.

A calendar that has already started

The Act entered into force on August 1, 2024. The prohibition on unacceptable-risk practices took effect in February 2025; obligations for general-purpose AI models began in August 2025; and full application—conformity assessments, CE marking, EU-database registration, post-market monitoring for high-risk systems—arrives on August 2, 2026, with a final grace period for regulated-product components running to 2027. Because the Act binds any provider whose systems reach the EU market or whose outputs are used within it, its reach is extraterritorial: a firm headquartered in New York or Singapore is squarely within scope, and penalties of up to €35 million or 7% of worldwide turnover make non-compliance a board-level risk.

The pyramid of criticality

The Act's organizing idea is a risk-based pyramid: unacceptable-risk practices are banned; high-risk systems—reaching common enterprise uses in hiring, credit scoring, and critical infrastructure—carry the heaviest lifecycle obligations; limited-risk systems owe transparency; and minimal-risk applications attract no new mandates. The Daiki solution operationalizes that structure, classifying each system through a rules engine aligned with the Act's definitions and Annex III, then triggering a workflow proportionate to its tier, with every action logged to an auditable evidence trail. Its architecture is anchored in ISO/IEC 42001, bridged to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and bounded throughout by deliberate human oversight—mirroring the Act's own Article 14.

A risk-based reading with a documented lineage

The post's central reading—that a risk-based regime rewards organizations able to prove their governance—has a clear history in Kop's scholarship. As Mauritz Kop's record of work shows, his 2021 analysis of the EU AI Act anticipated the four-tier architecture that is now law, and the same logic carries across the Atlantic to California's compute-threshold approach for frontier models. For general counsel and compliance leaders, the practical takeaway is consistent: build one coherent, standards-based governance system now—rather than a reactive checklist per statute—and the era of enforcement will reward exactly the discipline the era of voluntary principles merely recommended. Mandatory AI governance, as the post observes, is here to stay; the enterprises that treat it as design rather than damage control will be the trusted artificial intelligence leaders of the regulated decade ahead.

Meer lezen

Artificial Intelligence, European Law, GovernanceMauritz Kop23 juni 2025Mauritz Kop, AI, Regulation, Policy, Governance, Standards, Daiki, EU AI Act, AI Governance, ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF, Brussels Effect, Risk-Based Regulation, Frontier AI

The US ISO 42001 Standards-Centric Approach to AI Governance: Compliance, Trust, and Innovation (Daiki Repost)

AIRecht reposts, in full and with permission, a Daiki essay by Mauritz Kop, Co-Founder, on why the United States is converging on a standards-centric model of artificial intelligence governance—and why ISO/IEC 42001 has become its anchor. The repost is presented as published on May 13, 2025, with its original spellings, figures, and references intact.

A standards-first answer to a fragmented regime

The American approach to AI is, by design, light on binding federal statute and heavy on voluntary, risk-based guidance: the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, sector-specific direction from the FTC, EEOC, and FDA, and a patchwork of state laws. Into that fragmentation steps ISO/IEC 42001, the world's first international standard for AI Management Systems, published in December 2023. The essay's argument is that a single, certifiable management system can do what a stack of statute-shaped checklists cannot—give an organization one coherent governance posture that travels across jurisdictions.

The transatlantic bridge

The stakes are clearest for U.S. companies selling into Europe. ISO 42001 certification is not the same as EU AI Act compliance, but the two overlap heavily on risk management, data governance, transparency, documentation, and human oversight—precisely the obligations the Act imposes on high-risk systems. The repost frames the standard as a "common language" that lets a U.S. firm demonstrate diligence to European regulators and partners without building a separate compliance machine for each market. It is the same standards-first logic Kop and colleagues have argued for in quantum governance, where international standards substitute for legislation that has not yet caught up to the technology.

From paperwork to governance asset

The closing move is strategic rather than procedural. Under an anticipated period of U.S. federal deregulation, the essay contends, a globally recognized standard offers stability that domestic political cycles cannot: a baseline of good governance that holds regardless of which executive orders survive. The Daiki method then operationalizes that posture through six integrated components—an AI system registry, an EU AI Act toolkit, an ISO 42001 implementation framework, ISO 27001 data-security integration, MDR/ISO 13485 support for medical AI, and a responsible generative-AI framework—so overlapping requirements are managed once, not many times. The throughline connects to Daiki's wider body of work on operationalizing regulation, including its EU AI Act compliance solution and its quantum-governance recipe.

Why repost it here

For boards, general counsel, and AI program leads, the practical message is that the era of principles is giving way to an era of evidence: organizations will increasingly be asked to prove their governance, not merely assert it. Reposting the essay in full preserves Kop's argument verbatim while placing it alongside AIRecht's running coverage of Mauritz Kop's work at the intersection of AI, standards, and responsible technology governance.

Meer lezen

Towards an Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI

Stanford, CA May 5, 2025 — Today, Mauritz Kop published interdisciplinary research proposing “A Principled Approach to Quantum Technologies”, and the establishment of an “Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI” on the website of the European Commission. The Atomic Agency essay analyzes emerging AI and quantum technology (including their increasing complementarity and interdependence embodied in quantum-AI hybrids) regulation, export controls, and technical standards in the U.S., EU, and China, comparing legislative efforts anno 2025 to strategically balance the benefits and risks of these transformative technologies through the lens of their distinct innovation systems. The Principled Approach paper posits that quantum technology's dual use character brings with it the need to balance maximizing benefits with mitigating risks. In this spirit, the paper argues that quantum technology development should best be guided by a framework for Responsible Quantum Technology, operationalized by a set of tailored principles to optimize risk-benefit curves. Download the paper here.

Towards an Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI

The article analyzes emerging regulation, export controls, and technical standards for both quantum and AI (including their increasing complementarity and interdependence embodied in quantum-AI hybrids) in the U.S., EU, and China and offers novel conceptual frameworks to steward these technologies towards shared global benefit.

Key Takeaways:

1. Converging Need for Responsible Governance: Despite distinct innovation philosophies (market-driven in the U.S., values-based in the EU, and state-driven in China), there's a growing international consensus on the necessity for principled and responsible technology governance for both AI and quantum technologies.

2. The 'Washington Effect' vs. 'Beijing Effect': The U.S.'s security-centric policies are creating a de facto "Washington effect," potentially setting global rules for quantum law but risking premature regulation. Conversely, China's push for state-aligned standardization (e.g., via the Digital Silk Road) signals a "Beijing effect," which could export autocratic norms and fragment global interoperability, a trend exacerbated by unilateral export controls.

3. Potential U.S., EU and China Visions on a Quantum Governance Act: Given the distinct innovation ecosystems and strategic priorities of the United States, the European Union, and China, it is instructive to envision how each might hypothetically structure a dedicated legislative framework for quantum technologies. The research outlines hypothetical "Quantum Governance Acts" for each, reflecting their respective governance philosophies and innovation models, while also considering pathways towards greater international alignment based on shared values:

a. United States: Removing Barriers for U.S. Quantum Technology Act (deregulation, industrial standards-centric approach, Safeguarding through Advancing quantum technology, prioritizing market dynamism, national & economic security, and defense).

b. European Union: EU Quantum Act (harmonized regulation rooted in fundamental rights and societal benefit based on New Legislative Framework while incorporating elements from European Chips Act, renewed focus on defense via “European DARPA”).

c. China: Comprehensive Quantum Law (Safeguarding state control while Advancing state goals, blending elements of authoritarian governance with surveillance capitalism, integration of civilian and military sectors, self-reliance, exporting state norms & values through technical standards).

4. Global Challenges & Opportunities for Alignment: Faced with planetary challenges like disease, inequality and climate change, aligning on Responsible Quantum Technology (RQT) norms and standards is a critical global opportunity. The article cautions against a simplistic zero-sum game or Cold-War redux narrative for quantum competition, arguing it hinders vital international cooperation.

5. Quantum-Relativistic Innovation Theory of Everything: Philosophical thought experiment to understand innovation dynamics by drawing analogies from quantum mechanics (uncertainty, superposition at micro-level) and general relativity (context, structure at macro-level), theories about the fundamental nature of reality.

6. Smart Regulation and RQT by Design: Effective governance must move beyond mere restrictions to actively incentivize responsible behaviors, promoting "Responsible Quantum Technology (RQT) by design" through flexible instruments like Quantum Impact Assessments (QIA), RQT by design metrics, adaptive, modular legislation, & regulatory sandboxes.

7. Harmonized "Quantum Acquis Planétaire": The article advocates for a global body of Quantum Law ("Quantum Acquis Planétaire"), complemented by sector-specific practices. Such a quantum acquis would be anchored in universal ethical values and translated into foundational standards and agile legal guardrails. This requires inter-continental policymaking and strategic "recoupling" between major players like the U.S. and China, based on incentives and shared values (“what connects us” – e.g. human dignity, security, well-being).

8. An "Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI": A central proposal is the establishment of an international agency modeled after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This body would aim to enforce a global acquis, deter a quantum arms race, ensure non-proliferation of dual-use quantum-AI technologies via safeguards implementation (inspired by nuclear governance), and potentially oversee a global UN Quantum Treaty.

9. Need for International Collaboration & Research Platforms: Realizing ambitious goals like fault-tolerant quantum centric supercomputing, and scalable topological qudits unlocking higher-dimensional quantum systems leveraging multi-level logic, requires collective global expertise and collaborative research platforms akin to CERN or ITER, challenging protectionist measures that stifle necessary cooperation. Immediate global actions should focus on leveraging quantum for the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), mitigating a 'Quantum Divide,' promoting quantum literacy, and building a skilled quantum workforce.

The research underscores the urgent need for robust global quantum-AI governance structures and calls for a shift from purely competitive dynamics towards pragmatic cooperation and the codification of a harmonized global framework.

Meer lezen

A Brief Quantum Medicine Policy Guide: What Regulators Should Consider for Quantum and AI in Precision Medicine

As quantum technology and artificial intelligence move toward precision medicine, regulators face a problem they have not yet built tools for. A Brief Quantum Medicine Policy Guide—published on the Harvard Petrie-Flom Center's Bill of Health blog by Mauritz Kop, Suzan Slijpen, Katie Liu, Jin-Hee Lee, Constanze Albrecht, and I. Glenn Cohen, and cross-posted with the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology and the European Commission's European AI Alliance—is a concise map of the use cases, the overlapping legal regimes, and what agencies such as the FDA and EMA should consider. It is a companion to the team's longer treatment of how quantum technologies may be integrated into healthcare, and continues the collaboration later reflected in Kop's work consulting Amgen on quantum biomedical discovery.

Quantum use cases in healthcare

The guide sorts second-generation quantum medicine by domain. Quantum computing and simulation could accelerate de novo drug discovery by modeling molecular interactions, speed genome sequencing, and assist protein-folding prediction; quantum sensing could deliver continuous high-precision vital-sign monitoring, precision laser therapy, and earlier retinal diagnostics; post-quantum cryptography and quantum key distribution could secure patient data in line with HIPAA and GDPR. A recurring thread is the semiconducting quantum dot, whose ability to cross the blood-brain barrier opens possibilities in oncology imaging, targeted drug delivery, and neurodegenerative-disease research. Throughout, the authors keep the claims proportionate, marking many applications as early-stage or theoretical.

A fragmented regulatory map

There is no quantum-specific medical-device law in either the EU or the US. European devices fall mainly under the Medical Devices Regulation, with the EU AI Act and data laws in supporting roles, while CE marking is slowed by a shortage of Notified Bodies versed in AI or quantum. US devices may sit within the existing FDA framework—potentially including the Software-as-a-Medical-Device pathway—alongside HIPAA, the FTC, and standards such as ISO 13485. The guide's first practical counsel is for manufacturers to engage agencies early.

What regulators should build next

The guide names four changes: evaluation protocols attuned to quantum behaviors; risk-management frameworks that protect human subjects from quantum unpredictability; clinical-trial guidelines tailored to quantum devices; and interoperability standards. It then proposes a three-part architecture—ex-ante regulatory sandboxes for quantum-AI devices, ex-durante expert subcommittees, and an ex-post registration database—framed by ten guiding principles, from promoting quantum literacy to fostering institutional plasticity in bodies like the FDA and EMA. The throughline is a standards-first, anticipatory posture: prepare the institutions before the technology arrives, and balance innovation against patient safety rather than choosing between them.

Meer lezen

Nature Physics publishes A Call for Responsible Quantum Technology by Urs Gasser, Eline De Jong and Mauritz Kop

The leading journal Nature Physics has published "A Call for Responsible Quantum Technology," a significant Comment piece authored by a transatlantic team of scholars: Urs Gasser, Eline De Jong, and Mauritz Kop. Published on April 9, 2024, the article serves as a manifesto of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology (RQT). It presents a compelling argument for proactively establishing ethical and societal guardrails for quantum technology (QT) while the field is still in its formative stages.

Citation: Gasser, U., De Jong, E. & Kop, M. A call for responsible quantum technology. Nat. Phys. 20, 525–527 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-024-02462-8

This foundational work builds upon the Stanford Center for RQT's prior scholarship, including the foundational paper "Towards Responsible Quantum Technology" published at Harvard and the University of California, and the "10 Principles for Responsible Quantum Innovation" published at IOP Science & Technology. All three authors are members of the Stanford RQT Center, which is founded and directed by Kop, who also served as the senior and corresponding author on the Nature publication. The article crystallizes the Center's crucial mission: to guide the development of quantum technologies in a direction that is safe, ethical, and beneficial for humanity and the planet.

Watch Urs Gasser and Eline De Jong present their Nature publication at the Stanford Responsible Quantum Technology Conference here: https://youtu.be/2vA9fID-7SA?si=MV67C9jN34UlsmuW&t=1279

The Core Argument: A Proactive Stance on Quantum Governance

The central thesis of "A Call for Responsible Quantum Technology" is both clear and urgent: the time to consider and implement governance frameworks for QT is now. The authors draw a crucial lesson from the history of other powerful innovations, such as nuclear fission and artificial intelligence (AI), where ethical, legal, and social considerations were often addressed reactively, "once the genie is already out of the bottle." Given the potentially transformative and disruptive power of quantum, the article argues that repeating this mistake is not an option.

A Framework for Responsible Quantum Innovation

To navigate this complex landscape, the authors propose a comprehensive framework for Responsible Quantum Technology. This is not a call for premature, heavy-handed legislation but for a systematic approach to anticipate and manage the ethical, legal, social, and policy implications (ELSPI) throughout the entire QT lifecycle.

The framework is designed to be operationalized through a set of quantum-specific guiding principles, which the authors organize into three functional categories, known as the SEA principles:

Safeguarding: Principles focused on mitigating downside risks, requiring that issues like information security and malicious dual-use scenarios are considered from the outset of research and development.
Engaging: Principles designed to foster robust interaction between innovators and diverse stakeholders to address complex issues like intellectual property, market competition, and equitable access.
Advancing: Principles that prioritize and incentivize the development of QT applications that serve desirable societal goals and the common good.

This layered approach, spanning technical, ethical, and socio-legal considerations, provides a navigational aid for researchers, funders, policymakers, and industry leaders, offering both an "issue spotter" to identify potential challenges and a "compass" to guide the technology's trajectory.

The Authors of the Nature Publication on Responsible Quantum Technology

The Nature article is a product of deep interdisciplinary expertise, authored by three leading figures at the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology:

Urs Gasser is a distinguished Professor at the Technical University of Munich (TUM), where he is Dean of the TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology. A Fellow at the Stanford RQT Center, he was previously the Executive Director of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. His research focuses on the societal and regulatory implications of emerging technologies, bringing a wealth of experience in technology law and policy.

Eline De Jong is a Dutch philosopher and ethicist serving as a Fellow at the Stanford RQT Center. She is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, specializing in the philosophy and ethics of quantum technology. Her background includes advising the Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy on the societal impact of AI, providing a deep understanding of the co-evolution of technology and society.

Mauritz Kop, the Founding Director of the Stanford RQT Center and the article's senior and corresponding author, is a tech lawyer, policy advisor, and academic whose work focuses on creating sui generis governance frameworks for exponential technologies like AI and quantum. His scholarship, published by leading institutions globally, aims to integrate risk management, regulatory compliance, and safety standards directly into the innovation process.

This collaboration between legal, policy, and ethics scholars underscores the article's central message: ensuring a responsible quantum future requires a concerted, interdisciplinary, and international effort. As the manifesto for the Stanford Center for RQT, Nature’s "A Call for Responsible Quantum Technology" is a foundational text, setting a clear and principled agenda for the global quantum community.

Meer lezen

Harvard Petrie-Flom publishes EU and US Regulatory Challenges Facing AI Health Care Innovator Firms

Harvard Law School's Petrie-Flom Center has published EU and US Regulatory Challenges Facing AI Health Care Innovator Firms on its Bill of Health blog—an op-ed co-written by lead author Suzan Slijpen, Mauritz Kop (Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology), and senior author I. Glenn Cohen, who directs the Center. It examines why firms building artificial intelligence for medicine face such a tangled compliance map, and what a better one might look like.

Two regulatory philosophies, one transatlantic market

The piece sets Europe's cross-sectoral instinct against America's sectoral one. An AI medical product entering the EU must answer to the Medical Device Regulation, the GDPR, and a sweeping digital rulebook that now includes the EU AI Act and the coming European Health Data Space. In the United States, by contrast, coverage is patchy by design: HIPAA reaches only certain entities and data, and the FDA regulates medical AI only where it fits an existing category. Each model has genuine merits and genuine blind spots, and a firm selling on both shores must satisfy both at once.

Where the law strains hardest

The authors are clearest on the cases that resist tidy rules. Adaptive algorithms that keep learning after deployment make it hard to say when a model has changed enough to need fresh review—an area where the FDA's 2023 predetermined-change-control guidance points a constructive way forward. Generative AI overtook the EU AI Act mid-negotiation, unsettling how foundation models are treated under a rulebook drafted before they arrived. And at the material frontier sit quantum- and AI-driven devices, with their export controls, fragile supply chains, dual-use questions, and intellectual-property and security concerns—the bridge from this op-ed to Kop's broader work on the quantum technology governance frontier. The lesson the authors draw is procedural as much as substantive: regulators must understand the tempo of the technology they govern, or risk writing rules that are obsolete before they bind.

Toward a workable middle ground

Rather than crowning a winner, the authors propose a mixed horizontal-vertical approach: keep the precautionary care for patient safety, keep the permissionless capacity to innovate, and tailor the result to the economic realities of health care—from clinical-trial costs to market licenses. Regulation that is sensible, practical, and sector-specific, they argue, serves innovators and patients alike; anything less is rendered ineffective fast. Readers tracking Kop's longer arc on responsible technology can also follow his AIRecht scholar profile, where the through-line from AI in medicine to the law and ethics of the quantum age is laid out across a decade of work.

Meer lezen

Quantum Trials: An FDA for Quantum Technology

What if the United States regulated emerging quantum technology the way it regulates new medicines? That is the provocation at the center of Quantum Trials: An FDA for Quantum Technology, a Stanford Law School working paper by Alexandra Waldherr, I. Glenn Cohen, and Mauritz Kop, posted as a preprint and first presented at the 2023 Stanford Responsible Quantum Technology Conference. The paper proposes a phased, documentation-driven pipeline for second-generation quantum technology, modeled on the FDA's clinical-trials regime.

A phased pipeline for quantum

The framework maps the FDA's four stages onto quantum research and development. Phase I captures a theoretical idea or laboratory proof-of-concept in a concise technical one-pager; Phase II adds a proof-of-principle validation with an ethical checklist; Phase III is a confirmatory stage whose findings are condensed into a Summary of Quantum Characteristics for regulatory assessment; and Phase IV follows the authorized technology through its public lifecycle, with failure reports and audits. Throughout, "efficacy" is reread as technical innovation and "safety" as the absence of unresolved ethical and legal concerns. A binding registry ties the phases together, serving regulators, engineers, educators, and the public from one shared record.

SEA TURTLE and the registry-first first step

Over the phases sits the SEA TURTLE checklist—a six-point barometer distilling the Ten Principles for Responsible Quantum Innovation and the broader Responsible Quantum Technology paradigm into a quick test of whether a technology is both innovative and responsibly developed. Its "SEA" element names a commitment to Safeguarding, Engaging, and Advancing quantum technology, society, and humankind. The authors are realistic about the political capital a full "FDA for Quantum" would demand, so they single out one immediate, low-cost step: making the registration of quantum developments mandatory by law, in the spirit of the legislation that produced clinicaltrials.gov. A standardized registry, they argue, gives regulators the evidence they need to balance underregulation against overregulation.

Why the analogy matters for governance

The deeper argument is structural. A young, dual-use, exponentially developing field is better served by an evidence-generating, phased pipeline than by either premature prohibition or laissez-faire. The same logic animates the authors' work on law, ethics, and policy of quantum and AI in healthcare and the ethics of biomedical discovery in Hippocratic Quantum. The paper does not claim the drug-approval analogy is settled; it invites the physics community to test its feasibility and the legislative branch to adopt, evaluate, and refine it. As an opening move in the design of quantum-specific regulatory institutions, it is less a verdict than a carefully argued invitation.

Meer lezen

Quantum Technology, Healthcare, ReguleringHenry Quentir12 maart 2024Mauritz Kop, Quantum Technology, Quantum Governance, Regulation, Policy, Healthcare, Ethics, Stanford RQT, I. Glenn Cohen, Quantum Trials, FDA, Clinical Trials, SEA TURTLE, Medical Devices, Alexandra Waldherr

Blog over Kunstmatige Intelligentie, Quantum, Deep Learning, Blockchain en Big Data Law

A statehouse turns to the quantum age

Three messages from the interview

Why state-level quantum policy matters now

Why this brief on quantum governance, and why now

The brief’s recommendations in practical terms

Takeaway for AIRecht’s readership

From voluntary principles to enforceable rules

Six steps to SB-53 readiness

Why boards should care

The Columbia Journal of European Law: A Bastion of Transatlantic Legal Scholarship

CJEL Guided by Star Professors Anu Bradford and George Bermann

"Towards a European Quantum Act": A Two-Pillar Framework

A Standards-First Approach to Secure a Democratic Future

The Quantum Technology Quality Management System (QT-QMS)

Charting the Future of Quantum Governance: Our Vision for a Standards-First Approach in Science

A calendar that has already started

The pyramid of criticality

A risk-based reading with a documented lineage

A standards-first answer to a fragmented regime

The transatlantic bridge

From paperwork to governance asset

Why repost it here

Towards an Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI

Quantum use cases in healthcare

A fragmented regulatory map

What regulators should build next

The Core Argument: A Proactive Stance on Quantum Governance

A Framework for Responsible Quantum Innovation

The Authors of the Nature Publication on Responsible Quantum Technology

Two regulatory philosophies, one transatlantic market

Where the law strains hardest

Toward a workable middle ground

A phased pipeline for quantum

SEA TURTLE and the registry-first first step

Why the analogy matters for governance

Juridische diensten en projecten in Nederland en daarbuiten