Quantum Ethics Debate Requires Functional Understanding

A new philosophical analysis published in the journal NanoEthics argues that meaningful ethical debates about quantum technologies depend on a specific type of cognitive skill known as functional understanding. The study, authored by Eline de Jong, contends that while the innovative potential of quantum technologies is increasingly recognized, the conditions necessary for effective ethical engagement have received insufficient attention. De Jong proposes that understanding a technology’s functional capabilities—specifically what it can do and what it can be used for—is an epistemic prerequisite for discussing its societal and ethical implications. This perspective shifts the focus of public discourse away from the underlying physics of quantum mechanics and toward the practical applications and limits of the technology.

The article identifies a gap in current efforts to foster public understanding of quantum technologies. While many voices highlight the importance of ethical engagement, existing approaches often prioritize explaining the technical details and underlying physics, such as superposition and entanglement. De Jong argues that while technical insights may support ethical analysis, they are neither sufficient nor always necessary for grasping the broader societal implications. Instead, the study advocates for a functions-oriented approach that decouples functional understanding from technical expertise, thereby making ethical participation more accessible to a broader, non-specialist audience.

To ground this argument, the author draws on the work of De Jong and De Haro, who define technological understanding as the cognitive skill to recognize how a technology can be used to realize a particular aim. This definition implies that a technology must be intelligible to its user, requiring the ability to reason prospectively about the consequences of operating it. The study distinguishes between three contextual types of technological understanding: design, operation, and innovation. Each type foregrounds different aspects of the technology and involves different levels of intelligibility, with the innovation context being particularly relevant for ethical debates about future impacts.

In the design context, technological understanding involves reasoning about the inner workings of an artifact, such as how quantum phenomena are controlled to perform computational tasks. In the operation context, the focus is on practical use, such as knowing how to operate a device without understanding its internal mechanics. However, the innovation context, which is central to the article’s argument, involves inventing new relationships between a technology and a practical aim. This requires recognizing a technology’s functional capabilities, including the principles that determine what kinds of tasks it enables and where its limits lie.

De Jong illustrates the necessity of functional understanding with a hypothetical example of a handheld device with ‘read’ and ‘write’ buttons. Without knowing that the device is designed to read electronic data from a car key and write it into a new key, a person cannot meaningfully discuss the ethical concerns it raises. Similarly, in the case of quantum computers, ethical engagement requires envisioning possible applications, such as breaking current encryption methods or speeding up aspects of drug design. This functional perspective allows for an assessment of the technology’s fitness for purpose, distinguishing it from superficial technical knowledge or detailed physical explanations.

The study highlights a prevailing ‘physics-first approach’ in public and academic discussions about quantum technologies. An empirical study cited in the article found that 81% of Dutch news articles about quantum technologies explain the underlying physics, while another study noted that 70% of TEDx talks by experts on quantum science explained one or more quantum phenomena. De Jong argues that while basic explanations of quantum mechanics can spark interest, they generally do not make quantum technologies epistemically accessible in a way that enables meaningful ethical discussion. Most people do not fully understand how combustion engines or transistors work, yet they can still engage in ethical debates about cars and smartphones.

Overemphasizing physics can obscure rather than clarify quantum technologies, potentially hindering engagement. The article notes that mentioning concepts like superposition is not inherently problematic, but focusing too heavily on technical explanations risks misaligning with the goal of ethical reflection. Technical understanding, which focuses on a technology’s inner workings, is often not essential for ethical reflection on its risks and benefits. Instead, functional understanding is indispensable for discussing a wide range of ethical issues, as it enables people to grasp the scope of potential uses and the realistic limits of the technology.

The author acknowledges that technical insights may substantially support ethical analysis, particularly for issues related to direct safety, materials, or dependencies within a technology’s stack. However, functional understanding constitutes the core epistemic requirement for ethical engagement. By decoupling functional understanding from technical expertise, the proposed condition becomes attainable for a wider group, contributing to a more inclusive ethical debate. This approach does not require ethicists to become technical experts, nor does it assume that technical experts are automatically well-positioned to engage in ethical reflection without acquiring this distinct kind of understanding.

The study suggests that recent literature is beginning to move in this direction, with an increasing preference for functions-oriented discussions over physics-focused explanations. De Jong argues that fostering genuine functional understanding requires more than outlining possible applications; it involves enabling people to recognize the functional capabilities that underpin those applications. Where the functional capabilities of quantum technologies remain unclear, the study suggests that ethical engagement should proceed cautiously to avoid speculative overreach. This cautious approach is necessary because many applications of quantum technologies are still largely conceptual and uncertain.

The implications of prioritizing functional understanding are threefold. First, it raises and lowers the bar for ethical engagement simultaneously: it establishes a necessary epistemic condition while making that understanding more accessible. Second, it sets agendas for efforts to promote ethical engagement, directing them toward how technologies might function in practice rather than their inner workings. Third, it suggests that those with expertise in quantum mechanics must also acquire a distinct kind of understanding focused on potential functions and applications to effectively engage in ethical reflection.

De Jong concludes that effective ethical engagement is epistemically conditioned, requiring a certain degree of understanding of the technology to ensure that its development and deployment result in a net benefit for society and the planet. Without functional understanding, ethical discussions risk becoming overly speculative and detached from the realities of the technology. The study provides grounding and guidance for promoting understanding of quantum technologies, emphasizing that a well-informed ethical debate is essential for navigating the opportunities and risks associated with the quantum advantage.

This analysis contributes to the broader discourse on the societal impact of emerging technologies by specifying the type of knowledge required for meaningful participation. It challenges the assumption that technical complexity inherently limits public engagement, offering a framework that prioritizes practical capabilities over theoretical physics. By advocating for a functions-oriented approach, the study aims to foster an ethical debate that is both well-informed and inclusive, ensuring that the diverse voices in society can contribute to shaping the future of quantum technologies.

Subject of Research: Functional Understanding of Quantum Technologies is Essential to the Ethical Debate About Their Impact

Article Title: Functional Understanding of Quantum Technologies is Essential to the Ethical Debate About Their Impact

Article References: de Jong, E. (2026). Functional Understanding of Quantum Technologies is Essential to the Ethical Debate About Their Impact. NanoEthics, 20(1), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-026-00501-7

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s11569-026-00501-7

Keywords: Functional, Understanding, Quantum, Technologies, Essential, Ethical, Debate, Impact, scientific research