Eline de Jong

Quantum technologies (QT) are advancing rapidly, promising advancements across a wide spectrum of applications but also raising significant ethical, societal, and geopolitical impacts, including dual-use capabilities, varying levels of access, and impending quantum divide(s). To address these, the Responsible Quantum Technologies (ResQT) community was established to share knowledge, perspectives, and best practices across various disciplines. Its mission is to ensure QT developments align with ethical principles, promote equity, and mitigate unintended consequences. Initial progress has been made, as scholars and policymakers increasingly recognize principles of responsible QT. However, more widespread dissemination is needed, and as QT matures, so must responsible QT. This paper provides a structured, situated synthesis of the ResQT community's current work and identifies future directions from within this community perspective. Drawing on historical lessons from artificial intelligence and nanotechnology, actions targeting the quantum divide(s) are addressed, including the implementation of responsible research and innovation, fostering wider stakeholder engagement, and sustainable development. These actions aim to build trust and engagement, facilitating the participatory and responsible development of QT. The ResQT community advocates that responsible QT should be an integral part of quantum development rather than an afterthought so that quantum technologies evolve toward a future that is technologically advanced and beneficial for all.

Although several accounts of scientific understanding exist, the concept of understanding in relation to technology remains underexplored. This paper addresses this gap by proposing a philosophical account of technological understanding: the type of understanding that is required for and reflected by successfully designing and using technological artefacts. We develop this notion by building on the concept of scientific understanding. Drawing on parallels between science and technology, and specifically between scientific theories and technological artefacts, we extend the idea of scientific understanding into the realm of technology. We argue that, just as scientific understanding involves the ability to explain a phenomenon using a theory, technological understanding involves the ability to use a technological artefact to realise a practical aim. Both theories and artefacts are tools, and using them successfully requires the cognitive skill of understanding. Technological understanding is thus conceived as the ability to recognise how a practical aim can be achieved by using a technological artefact. In a context of design, this general notion of technological understanding is specified as the ability to design an artefact that, by producing a phenomenon through its physical structure, achieves the intended aim. By analogy with De Regt’s criterion of the intelligibility of theories, we give, as a precondition for technological understanding, a criterion for the intelligibility of a technological artefact. We illustrate our concept of technological understanding through two running examples: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and superconducting quantum computers. Our account highlights the epistemic dimension of engaging with technology and, by allowing for context-dependent specifications, provides guidance for testing and improving technological understanding in specific contexts.

Technologies increasingly shape animals’ lives, yet animal interests are still largely marginal in mainstream technology ethics and in frameworks of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). This paper argues that this neglect constitutes a serious moral blind spot that sits in tension with these fields’ own ethical aspirations. Debates about the ethical acceptability and societal desirability of technologies often take human interests as the normative baseline. This anthropocentrism runs deep in both RRI and technology ethics, yet it is ethically indefensible for two mutually reinforcing reasons. First, technological innovations have profound direct and indirect impacts on animals, which will only intensify with the rise of new system technologies such as artificial intelligence. Second, as sentient beings, animals possess moral status and are worthy of moral consideration. Together, these grounds a responsibility to take animal interests seriously in our technological activities. To give this responsibility a practical foothold, I mobilise the concept of stakeholdership — a cornerstone of both RRI and technology ethics — arguing that reinterpreting it to include animals can facilitate their inclusion in ethical deliberation and decision-making about technology. The paper sketches potential pathways for recognising animals as stakeholders in ethical discussions on technology, and engages with some key challenges such an extension is likely to face. I conclude that only by broadening the moral scope beyond human concerns can RRI and technology ethics uphold their normative integrity, attend to a wider range of technological harms and benefits, and genuinely pursue ethically acceptable and socially desirable innovation.

As the innovative potential of quantum technologies comes into focus, so too does the urgent need to address their ethical implications. While many voices highlight the importance of ethical engagement, less attention has been paid to the conditions that make such engagement possible. In this article, I argue that one key condition is technological understanding: the cognitive skill to recognise how a technology can be used to realise an aim. More specifically, I claim that meaningful ethical discussion depends, first and foremost, on understanding a technology’s functional capabilities: what it can do and what it can be used for. Presenting such ‘functional understanding’ as an epistemic requirement helps guide efforts to improve understanding of quantum technologies in support of ethical engagement. Such efforts often focus on explaining, in broad strokes, the underlying physics and technical details. While technical insights may indeed support ethical analysis, they are neither sufficient nor always necessary for grasping the broader societal and ethical implications of a technology. What is indispensable for such discussions is an understanding of its (potential) functions. To foster ethical engagement with quantum technologies, I therefore advocate a functions-oriented approach to promoting understanding of these technologies. At first glance, presenting technological understanding as an epistemic requirement for meaningful ethical engagement may seem to raise the bar for participation. However, by decoupling functional understanding from technical expertise, this condition becomes attainable for a broader group, contributing not only to a well-informed but also to a more inclusive ethical debate.

As the innovative potential of quantum technologies comes into focus, so too does the urgent need to address their ethical implications. While many voices highlight the importance of ethical engagement, less attention has been paid to the conditions that make such engagement possible. In this article, I argue that one key condition is _technological understanding_: the cognitive skill to recognise how a technology can be used to realise an aim. More specifically, I claim that meaningful ethical discussion depends, first and foremost, on understanding a technology’s functional capabilities: what it can do and what it can be used for. Presenting such ‘functional understanding’ as an epistemic requirement helps guide efforts to improve understanding of quantum technologies in support of ethical engagement. Such efforts often focus on explaining, in broad strokes, the underlying _physics_ and technical details. While technical insights may indeed support ethical analysis, they are neither sufficient nor always necessary for grasping the broader societal and ethical implications of a technology. What is indispensable for such discussions is an understanding of its (potential) _functions._ To foster ethical engagement with quantum technologies, I therefore advocate a functions-oriented approach to promoting understanding of these technologies. At first glance, presenting technological understanding as an epistemic requirement for meaningful ethical engagement may seem to raise the bar for participation. However, by decoupling functional understanding from technical expertise, this condition becomes attainable for a broader group, contributing not only to a well-informed but also to a more inclusive ethical debate.

In this comment, we argue for a more structured dialogue between animal ethics and technology ethics to advance ethical discussion in both fields. The rationale for such engagement is twofold: the growing impact of technologies on animals grounds an ethical imperative, while thematic overlaps and the prospect of cross-disciplinary insight provide an intellectual incentive. To support this conversation, we reflect on factors that have kept these fields apart and highlight key themes where their concerns intersect, outlining promising entry points for a sustained conversation.

A significant amount of scholarship and funding has been dedicated to ethical and social studies of new and emerging science and technology (NEST), from nanotechnology to synthetic biology, and Artificial Intelligence. Quantum technologies comprise the latest NEST attracting interest from scholarship in the social sciences and humanities. While there is a small community now emerging around broader discussion of quantum technologies in society, the concepts of ethics of quantum technologies and responsible innovation are still fluid. In this article, we argue that lessons from previous instances of NEST can offer important insights into the early stages of quantum technology discourse and development. In the embryonic stages of discourse around NEST, there is often an undue emphasis on the novelty of ethical issues, leading to speculation and misplaced resources and energy. Using a lens of continuity, we revisit experiences and lessons from nanotechnology discourse. Zooming in on key characteristics of the nanoethics discourse, we use these features as analytical tools with which to assess and analyse emerging discourse around quantum technologies. We point to continuities between nano and quantum discourse, including the focus on ‘responsible’ or ‘good’ technology; the intensification of ethical issues brought about by enabling technologies; the limitations and risks of speculative ethics; the effects of ambivalence on the framing of ethics; and the importance of paying attention to the present. These issues are taken forward to avoid ‘reinventing the wheel’ and to offer guidance in shaping the ethics discourse around quantum technologies into a more focused and effective debate.

The ethics of emerging technologies faces an anticipation dilemma: engaging too early risks overly speculative concerns, while engaging too late may forfeit the chance to shape a technology’s trajectory. Despite various methods to address this challenge, no framework exists to assess their suitability across different stages of technological development. This paper proposes such a framework. I conceptualise two main ethical approaches: _outcomes-oriented ethics_, which assesses the potential consequences of a technology’s materialisation, and _meaning-oriented ethics_, which examines how (social) meaning is attributed to a technology. _I argue that the strengths and limitations of outcomes- and meaning-oriented ethics depend on the uncertainties surrounding a technology_,_ which shift as it matures._ To capture this evolution, I introduce the concept of _ethics readiness_—the readiness of a technology to undergo detailed ethical scrutiny. Building on the widely known Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), I propose Ethics Readiness Levels (ERLs) to illustrate how the suitability of ethical approaches evolves with a technology’s development. At lower ERLs, where uncertainties are most pronounced, meaning-oriented ethics proves more effective; while at higher ERLs, as impacts become clearer, outcomes-oriented ethics gains relevance. By linking Ethics Readiness to Technology Readiness, this framework underscores that the appropriateness of ethical approaches evolves alongside technological maturity, ensuring scrutiny remains grounded and relevant. Finally, I demonstrate the practical value of this framework by applying it to quantum technologies, showing how Ethics Readiness can guide effective ethical engagement.

Technological understanding is not a singular concept but varies depending on the context. Building on De Jong and De Haro’s (2025) notion of technological understanding as the ability to realise an aim by using a technological artefact, this paper further refines the concept as an ability that varies by context and degree. We extend its original specification for a design context by introducing two additional contexts: operation and innovation. Each context represents a distinct way of realising an aim through technology, resulting in three types (specifications) of technological understanding. To further clarify the nature of technological understanding, we propose an assessment framework based on counterfactual reasoning. Each type of understanding is associated with the ability to answer a specific set of what-if questions, addressing changes in an artefact’s structure, performance, or appropriateness. Explicitly distinguishing these different types helps to focus efforts to improve technological understanding, clarifies the epistemic requirements for different forms of engagement with technology, and promotes a pluralistic perspective on expertise.

Although several accounts of scientific understanding exist, the concept of understanding in relation to technology remains underexplored. This paper addresses this gap by proposing a philosophical account of technological understanding—the type of understanding that is required for and reflected by successfully designing and using technological artefacts. We develop this notion by building on the concept of scientific understanding. Drawing on parallels between science and technology, and specifically between scientific theories and technological artefacts, we extend the idea of scientific understanding into the realm of technology. We argue that, just as scientific understanding involves the ability to explain a phenomenon using a theory, technological understanding involves the ability to use a technological artefact to realise a practical aim. Technological understanding can thus be considered a specific application of knowledge: it encompasses the cognitive skill of recognising how a practical aim can be achieved by using a technological artefact. In a context of design, this general notion of technological understanding is specified as the ability to design an artefact that, by producing a phenomenon through its physical structure, achieves the intended aim. We illustrate our concept of technological understanding through two running examples: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and superconducting quantum computers. Our account highlights the epistemic dimension of engaging with technology and, by allowing for context-dependent specifications, provides guidance for testing and improving technological understanding in specific contexts.