Quantum Nexus LSI Test Published by Vanderbilt JET Law

Most technology law arrives too late: the architecture ships, the market consolidates, and legislators are left regulating what already exists. A new essay in Vanderbilt's Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law argues that quantum technology presents the opposite—and far rarer—situation, and explains what the law should do with it. Quantum law is being written before quantum technology has fully arrived, and that timing is not a defect to apologize for but an opportunity to seize.

A test with three prongs

At the center of the essay stands the LSI test, a doctrinal instrument for dual-use governance that asks of every state intervention whether it is the least trade-restrictive, security-sufficient, and innovation-preserving measure available. The shift in emphasis is subtle but consequential: the question is no longer whether a government possesses a restrictive tool—export control, outbound investment screening, patent secrecy—but whether it is deploying the narrowest one that actually works. Between the romantics of total openness and the reflexes of total restriction, the test stakes out a defensible middle ground the essay calls security-sufficient openness.

Patents and export controls, one system

The essay's second contribution is diagnostic. Intellectual property and national security are conventionally treated as separate fields with separate experts and separate statutes. In quantum practice they behave as one entangled legal control plane: a single patent disclosure can simultaneously raise eligibility questions under Alice, research-security questions under the export-control regime, and commercialization questions under Bayh-Dole and the federal acquisition rules. Reading them together is not an academic nicety—it is the only way to see where over-securitization would quietly strangle the startups, standards participation, and allied interoperability on which democratic quantum leadership depends, a dynamic explored across the MINDS quantum strategy research at CIGI.

From a six-paragraph essay to a coalition playbook

Behind the essay stands the full Quantum Nexus Article—a book-length treatment on arXiv that develops the LSI test into an implementable coalition playbook: empirically anchored criteria, differentiated guardrails with red-zone domains where denial is the default, and secure closed-loop enclaves for high-sensitivity collaborative research. The stakes are framed without euphemism: U.S. assessments now call for a Quantum First posture by 2030, China's program advances under military-civil fusion, and the choice before democratic legislators is whether the coming wall of quantum regulation will be disciplined by doctrine or improvised under pressure. For lawyers, the essay is a preview of their next decade; for policymakers, it is a usable standard; and for the quantum community, it is an argument that the rules now being written deserve the same precision as the systems they will govern.

Meer lezen

Intellectual Property, Quantum Technology, GovernanceHenry Quentir9 april 2026Intellectual Property, National Security, Dual-Use, Export Controls, Patents, Quantum Governance, Stanford RQT, CIGI, Mauritz Kop, LSI Test, Vanderbilt JETLaw, Quantum Nexus

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

EPJ Quantum Technology Publishes Quantum Criticality Index Study by Cho, Kop and Lee

EPJ Quantum Technology has published a peer-reviewed framework by Dongyoun Cho, Mauritz Kop, and Min-Ha Lee that gives policymakers something the quantum field has lacked: a Quantum Criticality Index designed to flag supply-chain chokepoints before they harden into strategic crises.

A tri-axial index for fragile supply chains

Quantum hardware depends on inputs most governments have never inventoried—helium-3, isotopically enriched silicon-28, thin-film lithium niobate, superconducting niobium, dilution refrigerators from a handful of specialist suppliers. The QCI scores each input on supply risk, substitutability, and strategic significance, then adds an artificial neural network foresight layer that detects trend shifts and stress-tests scenarios: demand surges, export restrictions, regional shocks. Static critical-minerals lists update too slowly for a technology that scales architecture by architecture; the QCI is built to move at the field's own pace.

The molybdenum case

Preliminary QCI results flagged molybdenum's concentration risk publicly in May 2024; in February 2025, China placed the metal under export licensing, with global price effects the paper documents. The index had flagged the chokepoint before the shock—one episode that neatly illustrates the argument for criticality-based foresight. The same anticipatory logic drives the geostrategic work Kop contributes to the Eric Schmidt-backed von Neumann Commission on quantum-AI geostrategy.

Hardware shield, software shield

The framework's strategic claim is that supply-chain assurance and post-quantum cryptography migration are twin pillars of quantum security: PQC protects the data, the QCI protects the physical capability to build the machines. Diagnosis feeds decision feeds delivery—allied procurement, targeted licensing, calibrated stockpiling, verifiable assurance. Quantum statecraft, the paper argues, begins with knowing your own dependencies better than your rivals know them.

Meer lezen

Quantum Technology, Quantum Computing, GeopoliticsHenry Quentir10 maart 2026Mauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Geopolitics, National Security, supply chains, Critical Minerals, Export Controls, Quantum Criticality Index, Molybdenum, EPJ Quantum Technology, CISAC

Mauritz Kop Consults Amgen on Quantum-Biomedical Discovery

Invited by Howard Chang—the physician-scientist who led a renowned genomics laboratory at Stanford and now serves as Senior Vice President, Global Research, and Chief Scientific Officer at Amgen—Mauritz Kop consulted with Amgen's research organization on quantum-biomedical discovery: a disciplined exchange of ideas about where quantum methods can genuinely improve the way medicines are found.

An invitation from Amgen's chief scientist

The conversation paired deep biology with quantum strategy and governance. Its anchor was the Hippocratic Quantum approach Kop published at Harvard: accelerate discovery with quantum and quantum-classical methods, but under guardrails medicine itself would prescribe—validation, privacy, security, and patient trust from the first experiment. The same translational seriousness ran through the responsible-quantum lecture and workshop Kop gave at SandboxAQ.

Six use cases, one discipline

From computational chemistry for de novo discovery and lead optimization, through protein structure and selected omics analytics, metabolism and toxicity simulation, blood-brain-barrier hypotheses validated in organoid and lab-on-a-chip systems, operational optimization, and a watchlist for quantum neural networks—every candidate use case answers to the same rule: benchmark hard against strong classical baselines from day one, and let the evidence decide which pilots earn the next dollar.

Guardrails before hype

The strategy's quiet half is security and governance: a post-quantum cryptography roadmap for long-lived patient and research data, vendor diversification across qubit modalities, trade-secret and IP protection, and standards alignment. What the exchange was about, in the end, is decision quality—smarter discovery pipelines, better-protected data, and medicines that reach patients sooner.

Meer lezen

Healthcare, Quantum Technology, MedicineHenry Quentir3 maart 2026Mauritz Kop, Stanford RQT, Quantum Governance, Healthcare, Post-Quantum Cryptography, Amgen, Hippocratic Quantum, Quantum Medicine, Drug Discovery, Biomedical Discovery

Harvard Law Publishes Hippocratic Quantum: The Ethics of Biomedical Discovery in the Quantum Age

Cambridge, MA, February 25, 2026—Harvard Law’s Petrie-Flom Center has published Mauritz Kop’s new article, Hippocratic Quantum: The Ethics of Biomedical Discovery in the Quantum Age:https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2026/02/25/hippocratic-quantum-the-ethics-of-biomedical-discovery-in-the-quantum-age/

The article advances a proposition that is becoming increasingly difficult for health lawyers, policymakers, and biomedical innovators to ignore: as quantum technologies begin to enter biomedical discovery, the decisive challenge is no longer only scientific capability, but rather governance. In Kop’s account, quantum-enabled medicine should not be understood as a distant or speculative frontier that can be regulated later, once the engineering settles. It should instead be approached as a present-tense quantum governance problem, one that already implicates patient confidentiality, data integrity, cyber resilience, export controls, supply chains, and the geostrategic value of biomedical knowledge.

The article’s answer is not a new morality, but a more demanding implementation of an existing one: quantum medicine requires a Hippocratic framework that is technical enough for engineers, legal enough for regulators, and concrete enough for hospitals and pharmaceutical firms, yet flexible enough to let innovation breathe and encourage the crucial public-private investment necessary to advance allied quantum capabilities.

Five examples of quantum-enabled biomedical innovations

To ground this institutional view, one must consider the specific technological capabilities currently transitioning from theoretical physics to applied biomedicine. Five feasible vectors of innovation illustrate the breadth of this shift. In the domain of quantum computing, hybrid classical-quantum algorithms are emerging to optimize complex drug discovery pipelines and process large-scale genomic datasets. In quantum sensing, technologies such as diamond nitrogen-vacancy magnetometry enable ultra-sensitive, room-temperature mapping of neurological and cardiac activity. For quantum simulation, researchers are utilizing qubit-based systems to model molecular interactions and drug-target binding affinities with high accuracy, aiming to reduce reliance on extensive physical wet-lab screening. Within quantum imaging, techniques leveraging entangled photons permit the high-resolution visualization of cellular structures at lower light intensities, thereby mitigating phototoxicity in living tissues, benefitting medical diagnosis. Finally, in quantum networking, the deployment of quantum key distribution protocols offers a mechanism to cryptographically secure the transmission of sensitive multi-omics data across distributed hospital and research architectures.

From legal-ethical framework to Quantum-ELSPI

The Harvard article is best read as part of a longer intellectual trajectory. An early expression of that project appeared in March 2021 in the Yale Journal of Law & Technology, in Establishing a Legal-Ethical Framework for Quantum Technology: https://yjolt.org/blog/establishing-legal-ethical-framework-quantum-technology

That Yale piece argued that quantum technologies were moving from hypothetical ideas to commercial realities, and that law and policy should not wait for full technical maturity before building governance tools. It proposed a culturally sensitive legal-ethical framework for applied quantum technologies, drawing on AI governance and nanotechnology’s ELSI tradition while recognizing the distinct physical characteristics of quantum systems. Crucially, it also insisted that ethical aspiration must be accompanied by practical mechanisms for monitoring, validation, and life-cycle risk management. In retrospect, many of the themes that now reappear in Hippocratic Quantum were already visible there: the concern for human-centered design, the call for risk-based governance, and the insistence that ethics without institutionalization would be inadequate.

Why quantum medicine changes the governance question

The new Harvard article narrows the focus to biomedicine, but in doing so it sharpens the stakes. Biomedical discovery is not simply another application area. It is a setting in which long-lived and highly sensitive data, bodily integrity, public-health interests, commercial incentives, and geopolitical competition intersect. Quantum technologies matter here not because they promise speculative disruption, but because they may incrementally and then materially improve specific tasks: hybrid quantum-classical computational chemistry, de novo molecular design, lead optimization, selected toxicity and metabolism modeling, and perhaps aspects of high-fidelity sensing, simulation, and networked quantum computation. The issue, then, is not whether every promise will be realized immediately. It is whether institutions are preparing now for the forms of capability that are already foreseeable.

A Harvard-facing research arc

This Harvard publication also extends a longer Harvard-facing research arc across AI, health law, and responsible quantum governance. That arc includes:

The Right To Process Data For Machine Learning Purposes In The EU (Harvard JOLT) https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/the-right-to-process-data-for-machine-learning-purposes-in-the-eu
Towards Responsible Quantum Technology (Harvard Berkman Klein) https://cyber.harvard.edu/publication/2023/towards-responsible-quantum-technology
EU And US Regulatory Challenges Facing AI Health Care Innovator Firms (Harvard Petrie-Flom) https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2024/04/04/eu-and-us-regulatory-challenges-facing-ai-health-care-innovator-firms/
A Brief Quantum Medicine Policy Guide (Harvard Petrie-Flom) https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2024/12/06/a-brief-quantum-medicine-policy-guide/
How Quantum Technologies May Be Integrated Into Healthcare: What Regulators Should Consider (Stanford Law) https://hls.harvard.edu/bibliography/how-quantum-technologies-may-be-integrated-into-healthcare-what-regulators-should-consider/

Seen in this broader context, Hippocratic Quantum brings together early legal-ethical framing, responsible quantum governance, healthcare regulation, and geopolitical analysis into a single biomedical governance argument.

The article has also been featured by The Quantum Insider, which highlighted its central argument that quantum medicine’s promise must be matched by stronger privacy and governance safeguards: https://thequantuminsider.com/2026/02/27/analysis-quantum-medicines-promise-raises-new-privacy-and-governance-risks/

Meer lezen

Mauritz Kop Principal Investigator of MINDS Quantum Strategy Grant at CIGI

Waterloo, February 18, 2026—The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) has awarded Mauritz Kop a new leadership role as Principal Investigator (incoming) of a MINDS Targeted Engagement Grant on Quantum Strategy. The grant advances a central proposition of his recent work: quantum technologies are no longer best understood as a narrow scientific frontier or a conventional innovation file. They have become a strategic domain in which law, industrial policy, intellectual property, defense planning, and geopolitical competition now converge.

That convergence matters because quantum capability is being built in an era of systemic rivalry, supply-chain vulnerability, and technological coercion. In that environment, democratic states cannot afford to treat quantum merely as a research ecosystem problem. They must govern it as part of a broader strategy for safeguarding the democratic industrial commons: the shared base of talent, infrastructure, know-how, trusted supply chains, standards, and institutions on which long-run security, prosperity, and coalition advantage depend.

What MINDS in Defence and Security Is and Why This Grant Fits

The MINDS program—Mobilizing Insights in Defence and Security—is a Canadian Department of National Defence initiative designed to strengthen evidence-based defense policy thinking and foster the next generation of defense and security experts. Its Targeted Engagement Grants provide non-recurring support for projects such as workshops, roundtables, research, and publications, and they are assessed primarily against the annual Defence Policy Challenges.

The current 2025-2026 MINDS challenge set is especially well aligned with the subject matter of this grant. The official challenge framework emphasizes several critical priorities: securing Canada’s sovereignty and continental defense posture; attracting advanced-technology talent across the defense sector; and strengthening the defense industrial base through resilient supply chains and dual-use technologies such as quantum and artificial intelligence. Furthermore, the framework addresses the pressures of strategic competition—including adversarial exploitation of vulnerabilities—and the accelerating adoption of pan-domain, emerging technologies where interoperability, trust, and responsible governance must be preserved.

Strategic Leadership and Human Capital

Kop’s fellowship at CIGI has centered on the governance of transformative technologies, especially quantum technology, AI, dual-use export controls, national security, and intellectual property. The new grant builds directly on that portfolio, but with a more operational mandate. As incoming Principal Investigator, his role will be to provide the project’s strategic and intellectual leadership: conceptualizing the workshop, defining the central themes and policy questions, structuring the panels for direct relevance to Canadian defense audiences, chairing the main event, moderating key expert sessions, identifying high-level contributors, and guiding the project’s analytical outputs.

The Quantum Nexus Paper Behind the Grant

The grant builds on Kop’s recent paper, The Nexus of Quantum Technology, Intellectual Property, and National Security: An LSI Test for Securing the Quantum Industrial Commons, now available on arXiv.

In that paper, he argues that quantum technologies have moved from laboratory structures to the geopolitical stage, and that democratic states therefore need a governance model that is neither naively open nor reflexively protectionist. The paper's contribution is an implementable coalition playbook, offering empirically anchored criteria, templates, and differentiated guardrails - including red zone domains where denial is the default - to avoid both over-securitization and under-securitization. Properly applied, LSI reduces the risk of a self-defeating hard decoupling from China while establishing standards-first interoperability as a stabilizing eigenstate of the international order and enabling RQT by design to shape trusted adoption pathways beyond the coalition, including in the majority world.

Meer lezen

An LSI Test for Securing the Quantum Industrial Commons

Mauritz Kop—Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology and a CIGI Senior Fellow—has posted as a preprint a book-length Article that reframes quantum strategy as a problem of disciplined openness. The Nexus of Quantum Technology, Intellectual Property, and National Security argues that democracies should pursue neither closure nor laissez-faire, but "security-sufficient openness," screened through a single administrable test. It is a strategic companion to the cryptographic argument set out in "A Bletchley Park for the Quantum Age."

Deterrence by denial for democratic resilience

The Article's organizing idea is responsible quantum technology reframed as values-based deterrence by denial: a legal, ethical, and institutional control plane that protects the shared "quantum industrial commons"—talent, tooling, standards, supply chains, and the research base—against authoritarian appropriation. Deterrence by denial aims to make hostile gains too slow or costly to be worthwhile, rather than relying on the threat of retaliation, and the Article presents it as the least escalatory way to preserve crisis stability. It situates the analysis against an approaching strategic "event horizon," citing the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission's call for a "Quantum First by 2030" posture and parallel White House initiatives to secure critical inputs.

The LSI test

The central contribution is the LSI test, which asks whether any given control is least-trade-restrictive, security-sufficient, and innovation-preserving. The test is built to avoid two failure modes: over-securitization, which chills publication, standards leadership, and venture formation, and under-securitization, which leaks crown-jewel capabilities that are slow to reacquire. LSI is applied across a "pillarized" quantum stack—computing, sensing, simulation, networking, communication, quantum-AI hybrids, and enabling materials—and to its upstream dependencies in patent and trade-secret doctrine, government-funded IP and data rights, export controls, investment screening, and cryptographic baselines including post-quantum cryptography and crypto-agility. The framing borrows from physics with care: because the relevant systems are genuinely probabilistic, the Article uses the "Eight Worlds" scenario method to keep governance robust across divergent futures.

A coalition playbook against a "Silicon Curtain"

Rather than stop at theory, the Article assembles an implementable coalition playbook—administrable criteria, templates, and differentiated guardrails, including red-zone domains where denial is the default—and integrates instruments of economic statecraft such as a strategic critical-minerals reserve and a Quantum Criticality Index. Its closing warning is that mishandled securitization could raise a self-defeating "Silicon Curtain" between allied innovators; the constructive alternative is standards-first interoperability treated as a stabilizing feature of the international order. The work has been posted as a preprint on arXiv and is announced on AIRecht in the Nexus paper announcement.

Meer lezen

Quantum Technology, Intellectual Property, GeopoliticsHenry Quentir12 februari 2026Mauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Intellectual Property, National Security, Stanford RQT, Geopolitics, Standards, Policy, LSI test, Deterrence by Denial, Quantum Industrial Commons, CIGI, Export Controls, Post-Quantum Cryptography, arXiv

The Nexus of Quantum Technology, Intellectual Property, and National Security

Some moments in technology policy demand a text that turns scattered anxieties into administrable law. For the collision of quantum technology, intellectual property, and national security, Mauritz Kop's book-length Article on arXiv makes that move: The Nexus of Quantum Technology, Intellectual Property, and National Security: An LSI Test for Securing the Quantum Industrial Commons—a work that reads today's probabilistic security environment like a wavefunction of plausible futures, and asks which policy choices will collapse it into an outcome democracies can live with.

The claim: security-sufficient openness

The Article's central claim is that the United States and its allies should pursue security-sufficient openness, operationalized through an LSI test: every intervention—an export control, an outbound-investment screen, a patent-secrecy order—must be the least trade-restrictive, security-sufficient, innovation-preserving measure available, whether the actor is a state or a private firm. Between total openness, which hands strategic capabilities to rivals mobilized under military-civil fusion, and total restriction, which strangles the science, the test stakes out the only ground that is defensible in both senses of the word.

Red zones, enclaves, and economic statecraft

What makes the work more than a framework essay is its machinery. The Article delivers an implementable coalition playbook: empirically anchored criteria, templates, and differentiated guardrails—including red-zone domains where denial is the default—plus secure closed-loop enclaves where allied researchers can pursue high-sensitivity R&D without choosing between secrecy and collaboration. The instruments of economic statecraft that democracies have increasingly been deploying are integrated here into a single disciplined doctrine, with the U.S. assessments calling for a Quantum First posture by 2030 supplying the deadline.

What is at stake

The Article names the twin failure modes precisely. Over-securitize, and democracies erect a self-defeating Silicon Curtain—suppressing publication, standards participation, and startup formation until the alliance walls itself off from its own innovation. Under-securitize, and strategically meaningful capabilities in computing, sensing, and cryptanalysis diffuse to adversaries faster than open societies can respond. Threading that needle is the geostrategic design problem of the decade—the same problem Kop works on as an expert at the Eric Schmidt-backed von Neumann Commission on quantum-AI geostrategy. Properly applied, the LSI test secures the quantum industrial commons without suffocating the scientific commons beneath it—and extends trusted adoption pathways to the majority world. This post walks through the Article's argument, its playbook, and what both mean for the lawyers and legislators who will write the quantum statutes of the late 2020s.

Meer lezen

Quantum Technology, Intellectual Property, GeopoliticsHenry Quentir11 februari 2026Mauritz Kop, Intellectual Property, National Security, Quantum Governance, Geopolitics, Stanford RQT, Trade Secrets, Export Controls, Dual-Use, LSI Test, Quantum Industrial Commons, arXiv, Economic Statecraft

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

Responsible Peer Review at Scholarly Journals: Guiding Manuscripts to Their Best Form

Behind every published paper stands an unnamed reader who helped make it publishable. That reader is a peer reviewer—unpaid, anonymous, and usually invisible. Mauritz Kop, Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, has done that work across a strikingly broad set of fields, and this essay treats peer review as a craft worth describing: how to do it well, and where he does it.

Steward, not gatekeeper

Everything follows from how a reviewer understands the role. Read as a turnstile, review collapses into fault-finding; read as care for the scholarly record, it turns into the question of what a paper needs to reach its strongest form. Saying no remains part of the job when nothing can rescue a manuscript—but repair, not rejection, is the starting assumption. The method that supports this is unglamorous: read once generously to grasp intent, again critically to test claim against method and evidence, and a third time as the non-specialist who has to follow it. What the author then receives should be a guide, not a grade—precise, proportionate, and respectful of the labor behind the work.

What interdisciplinary review demands

The journals map the range of the practice—npj Digital Medicine, Ethics and Information Technology, Minds and Machines (Springer Nature), NanoEthics (Springer Nature), Intellectual Property Quarterly (Thomson Reuters), the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (Oxford University Press), and Quantum Science and Technology (IOP Publishing). Evidence means something different in each: a trial result, a philosophical argument, a reading of statute, and a physics experiment are not validated the same way, so the reviewer adapts to the discipline at hand. Physics makes the point sharp. A quantum protocol that assumes an unknown state can be copied violates the no-cloning theorem; a scheme that ignores decoherence, or forgets that measurement perturbs the very state it reads, has not survived contact with the physics—a rigor that also animates Kop's Quantum-ELSPI work on the legal and ethical implications of quantum technology.

Confidentiality and recognition

You will find no war stories here about particular submissions, and the silence is deliberate. Confidentiality is not an accessory to peer review but its precondition: only because reviewers say nothing can authors hand unfinished work to a stranger. Such discretion makes the labor hard to see, and harder to honor. The exception came in 2022, when IOP Publishing granted Kop its Trusted Reviewer Certification, a competency-based recognition of reviewers who demonstrate a high standard of review—a mark of rigor and usefulness rather than sheer output. Practiced this way, peer review is less a barrier than the quiet mechanism that keeps the scholarly record trustworthy.

Meer lezen

Academics, Research, ScholarshipMauritz Kop25 december 2025Mauritz Kop, Stanford RQT, Ethics, Standards, Peer Review, Scholarly Publishing, Research Integrity, IOP Trusted Reviewer, Quantum Science and Technology, Interdisciplinary Research

GARP Interviews Mauritz Kop on Quantum Governance Strategies for Risk Professionals

The Global Association of Risk Professionals (GARP) interviewed Mauritz Kop for David Weldon's article Full-Scale Quantum Computing May Be Years Away. Risk Mitigation Can't Wait.—bringing quantum governance to the desks of risk professionals worldwide.

Q-Day is the wrong question

Kop's message to the risk profession inverts the usual timeline anxiety. The immediate danger is not a cinematic moment when encryption falls; it is the quiet accumulation of harvested data—financial records, identity data, health and government archives—collected today for decryption tomorrow, compounded by weak vendor oversight and a lack of crypto-agility. Records that outlive their cryptography may already face that exposure, whatever the hardware roadmaps say.

Five must-haves for a quantum governance strategy

The strategy Kop laid out is deliberately operational: a PQC migration roadmap anchored in asset classification and harvest-now-decrypt-later exposure; board-level ownership; integration with existing cyber, model, and operational risk frameworks; vendor due diligence on quantum-safety claims; and independent testing and benchmarking instead of marketing trust. Layered across architecture, algorithms, and operations, it treats quantum as an extension of disciplines risk professionals already command—the same principles-to-practice arc as the global quantum policy brief he co-authored at CIGI.

From the trading floor to the boardroom

Quantum, Kop argues, is both threat and tool for finance: it endangers the confidentiality of everything archived, and it is being explored for better simulation, optimization, and risk discovery. His benchmark for the U.S.: core post-quantum migration substantially done before 2030 for long-lived data and critical systems. The institutions that will meet that deadline are the ones whose boards treat quantum readiness as governance, not as someone else's research project.

Meer lezen

Quantum Technology, Governance, CybersecurityMauritz Kop19 december 2025Mauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Policy, Standards, Post-Quantum Cryptography, GARP, Risk Management, Financial Services, Crypto-Agility, Quantum Technology Impact Assessment

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

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

A test with three prongs

Patents and export controls, one system

From a six-paragraph essay to a coalition playbook

A statehouse turns to the quantum age

Three messages from the interview

Why state-level quantum policy matters now

A tri-axial index for fragile supply chains

The molybdenum case

Hardware shield, software shield

An invitation from Amgen's chief scientist

Six use cases, one discipline

Guardrails before hype

Five examples of quantum-enabled biomedical innovations

From legal-ethical framework to Quantum-ELSPI

Why quantum medicine changes the governance question

A Harvard-facing research arc

What MINDS in Defence and Security Is and Why This Grant Fits

Strategic Leadership and Human Capital

The Quantum Nexus Paper Behind the Grant

Deterrence by denial for democratic resilience

The LSI test

A coalition playbook against a "Silicon Curtain"

The claim: security-sufficient openness

Red zones, enclaves, and economic statecraft

What is at stake

Why this brief on quantum governance, and why now

The brief’s recommendations in practical terms

Takeaway for AIRecht’s readership

Steward, not gatekeeper

What interdisciplinary review demands

Confidentiality and recognition

Q-Day is the wrong question

Five must-haves for a quantum governance strategy

From the trading floor to the boardroom

From voluntary principles to enforceable rules

Six steps to SB-53 readiness

Why boards should care

Juridische diensten en projecten in Nederland en daarbuiten