Research proposal

Observatory of Quantum Technologies

(October-December 2023)

Arnau Demergasso

Postgraduate Research Assistant

18/09/2023
1. Overview

One of the defining traits of the modern era is the exponential gathering of scientific
knowledge, which is leading to a breakthrough in technological production. The speed of
these new developments has led some historians to proclaim that we have entered into a
new era, where our lives will be dramatically changed to the point of being completely
unrecognizable a decade from now.

Amongst all these areas of achievement, quantum mechanics is heralded as the chief
discipline to lead this revolution. Currently, scientists rave about the potential applications
of quantum discoveries, promising outlandish advances in our ability to sense, process,
and store information. Specifically, the term ‘quantum supercomputer’ has achieved
celebrity status in the scientific community, as a device that would dwarf even our most
advanced computers. This promise has brought unparalleled optimism amongst the wider
economic community, as businesses and start-ups hurry to be the first to translate this
knowledge into marketable products. In short, by applying quantum principles, we will
revolutionize technological production, or so they say.

Therefore, this Observatory was created to peak beneath the curtain of this hype and
establish the real state of quantum technologies in Spain. Our aim was not only to make
an objective assessment of the ecosystem (which has not been provided by mainstream
consulting agencies) but also to illustrate how its development is illustrative of wider
sociological and economic models of innovation. In this sense, we intend to use the case
of quantum technologies in Spain as a practical example of current theoretical innovation
systems, exposing both their inner workings and potential shortcomings.

2. State of research and current findings

Today, we are proud to claim that our first objective is very near to completion. We started
by developing a database1 detailing every actor with stakes in quantum technological
research and production in Spain. This database contains not only their names and
locations but also their timetables, subsectors of the economy and technology fields.
However, the most important information to be found there is the direction of their

1
This data collection was conducted using several sources. We used existing field surveys (e.g., AMETIC),
EU databases, interviews, and independent website data.
funding schemes. We believe that, by tracing the money that these actors receive or
provide, we have accurately established which are the roles that these actors perform in
the wider theoretical context. Its importance will become apparent later.

As a result of this database,

we have developed a
graphical and interactive map
(see Figure I) that focuses on
the economic links between
these actors, by using a
network analysis model.
Thus, we have been able to
point out which are the main
funders and receivers in the
ecosystem, confirming our Figure I: Interactive map of all the actors based on a network
analysis model.
suspicion of it being shaped
by a larger theoretical impulse.

In other words, we have seen

how only 10% of the actors
are exclusive providers of
funding (see Figure III), and
more than half of them are
entirely public institutions
(see Figure II). Moreover, the
European Commission
Figure II: Descriptive graphic of types of institutions that
accounts for a large share of provide funding.
the funding. In a few words,
we have observed how a select group of public institutions are the driving economic force
behind this claimed revolution.
Nevertheless, there might be another type
of actor that is even more crucial to
understanding how the ecosystem works.
On one side, funders account for 10%, and
on the other side, 43% of the total actors
are considered receivers. That means that
35%2 of the actors have a hybrid role (see
Figure III), acting both as receivers of Figure III: Descriptive graphic of funding
funding from higher institutions as well as directions.

providers for smaller actors. We have labelled these as ‘projects’, and their presence tells
us a great deal about the theoretical framework that this ecosystem is built.

Finally, we have witnessed that most of these projects and receivers are still in their early
stages since none of them have produced technological products that are ready to enter
the market. Hence, we are observing the birth of an ecosystem, where research and
innovation are still the main activities, with little economic return to show for them. This
is relevant because other surveys give the impression that the quantum explosion is right
around the corner, while an objective assessment tells us that such an event is unlikely to
come soon. In other words, there is a lot of hype for little market activity.

3. Analysis and conclusions

There are several points that we can extract from our collected data. Let us start with the
fact that these ‘projects’ are a signal of a bigger problem brewing. Essentially, these serve
as links between public institutions and concrete research initiatives (both in public
institutions such as universities and private start-ups). The issue lies in the fact that these
projects are mostly administered by scientists. For example, ICFO (one of the chief
research centres in Spain and responsible for developing the ‘supercomputer’) leads
several of the projects. As a result, we have concluded that these projects act as mere
screens for the real drivers of the ecosystems, which are those scientists who work in such
research centres.

2
It has to be noted that 12% of actors do not declare their funding schemes.
Consequently, scientists have abandoned their traditional role as mere technicians. Now,
they are asked to perform also as managers and entrepreneurs. In other words, their goal
is not only to drive scientific and technological progress but also to manage the economic
implications of their findings. Thus, they are asked to develop skills far beyond their
original training, leading to a state of confusion among them. In this sense, what is truly
revolutionary in the Spanish quantum ecosystem is the expectations for its key
practitioners, since they have been asked to pursue projects with economic ends, rather
than scientific ones.

4. Objectives and expected results

As stated before, the first part of our research is almost completed. Obviously, we would
like to continue updating and refining our database and map, since the ecosystem is
constantly moving and new actors are expected to appear. However, we are ready to start
writing articles to be published in recognized journals, by analysing the underlying
motives beneath the actors’ connections. Therefore, we are expecting to see massive
results in terms of academic recognition, since these articles will expose how the
ecosystem really functions as well as make relevant points about the wider context of how
research and innovation work.

In consequence, we would like to write three different articles 3, according to the three
lines of analysis we would like to further pursue. First, we would like to point out how
the term ‘revolution’ is misused by the main surveys. In this first article, we will initially
offer a brief review of the original meaning of the term, which refers to an upheaval of
the scientific paradigm (the basic set of rules upon which a scientific discipline is built).
Therefore, we will argue that the quantum paradigm was already established in the XX
Century since there have not been any substantial changes to its basic corpus of
knowledge.

Consequently, we will point out that the quantum ecosystem is simply experiencing a
period of innovation rather than a true revolution. Furthermore, we will suggest that the

3
These articles are not conceived as standalone papers, but rather as a series with a natural progression. In
that sense, the first and second articles provide theoretical context, while the third explains the practical
case of the Spanish ecosystem according to the basis provided previously. For that reason, we might present
them as a single article, if the journal-specific length constraints allow us to do so.
usage of such a term is not a coincidence, but rather a ploy to build up hype towards
quantum technologies. This is apparent by the fact that the ones who are using the concept
are the most financially invested in quantum technologies, thus they have ample reasons
to use such rhetoric. Finally, we will conclude that the current non-existent demand for
quantum technologies raises questions about the viability of the short-term returns they
promise to new businesses.

Second, we will write another article explaining how the perception of proper scientific
innovation has changed over the years and now is framed upon a model called ‘innovation
ecosystems’, a concept coined by economist Maria Mazzucato. We will start the paper by
explaining these previous models, which were state-driven and had definite paths of
research.

However, we will proceed to point out how these models were questioned because of their
excessive public control and replaced by neoliberal models, which let the market define
the paths for scientific innovation without any public involvement. We will further argue
that these models are based upon the assumption that ‘the market knows better”, and that
there is little empirical evidence to support that such models are more suited to drive
proper scientific innovation since they often lack consistent directionality.

Therefore, we will argue that public institutions had to adapt to those neoliberal demands
while still providing support, thus creating the new ‘ecosystem’ model. In this new model,
what is intended is to create the proper economic conditions where scientific progress
will organically happen (thus the usage of the term ‘ecosystem’). Thus, the links between
public and private actors are much more horizontal, without a definite path or clear
objectives set by the state.

Nowadays, governments simply provide businesses and universities with the economic
means to develop technologies, and those are the ones who actually decide which lines of
innovation to explore. In short, we will conclude by saying that this new model is
conceived as a hybrid of the previous models, as the state still fosters but does not plan
innovation.

Finally, our third paper will focus on the Spanish quantum case as a great practical
example of how this ecosystem model functions. According to our findings, we will
illustrate how these ‘projects’ are the drivers of innovation, since they connect public
funding with private institutions. Moreover, we will point out how this framework
supposes that these ‘projects’ will drive innovation without guidance from the state while
benefiting from their support since they receive money without needing to surrender
control.

Also, we will explain how this ecosystem aims to use scientific innovation to create
economic revenue. By offering scientists with economic means, it is expected that their
research will create profitable quantum technologies. In other words, the current
investment is aimed to create huge economic returns in the long run. Finally, we will raise
some concerns about the validity of such expectations, since the lack of concerted
directionality has already created confusion. What is more, we might also have
unexpected conflicts about the beneficiaries of the model, since now all the IP belongs to
private initiatives regardless of their public funding.

5. Further lines of research

We do not expect that the articles will be the end of the Observatory. On one hand, we
expect that our database will receive external attention, so we would like to continue
updating it beneath December. As told before, the interesting factor of the Spanish case
is its early stage, so we expect huge developments in the next few years. In that sense, we
would like to confirm or disprove our suspicions about the anticipated progress of the
ecosystem.

On the other hand, quantum technologies are not limited to Spain. Therefore, we would
like to compare the Spanish case with the rest of Europe (which we suppose to be similar,
albeit more developed), as well as the US and China. We feel that the contrast between
these regions will offer great insight about their innovation policies, and we feel that the
comparison would benefit our own model (by suggesting potential upgrades) as well as
reveal wider political tendencies of these countries.