The Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology (RQT) provides an extensive array of Fellowships, enabling exceptional researchers at any stage in their career to delve into diverse RQT related topics, produce pioneering scholarship, and manage their own Projects. In addition to workshops and seminars, the Center organizes its annual RQT Conference to facilitate interaction and collaboration between RQT Fellows, faculty and thought leaders across a rich variety of disciplines.
In this Q&A, Alexandra Waldherr (22), now in her first year as RQT Fellow, breaks down what lead her on her journey to Stanford RQT and to the field of responsible quantum technology, and details the latest research findings of her RQT Project, named Quantum Hardware, Simulation and Education.
How did you become interested in quantum technology?
Back in 2018, quantum computing was not the most widely known topic. Nevertheless, every now and then, some coverage on the topic went through the news. A family member of mine expressed, that he was very skeptical “quantum computers” would ever work. I decided to read up on the topic. During the same time, I was in chemical laboratories where we used NMR (= nuclear magnetic resonance) to interact with spins of atomic nuclei and find out structures of chemical molecules.
Thereby, while reading up about quantum computing, I realized that the first quantum computer was built on NMR hardware (in 1998 by I. Cuang, N. Gershenfeld, M. Kubinec). Even more, the first time Shor’s algorithm was run, it was also on NMR devices, in essence on chemical molecules!
Understanding hardware pieces, the software could not be that bad, could it? Mind me, I underestimated the mathematics quite a bit, being only in high school back then. However, the IBM Quantum Platform had been running for about a year already, so there was a free opportunity to access quantum computers via the cloud, to learn and grow with the field. This is what I did. 
What drew you to responsible quantum technologies specifically? Was there someone or something that inspired you to pursue this field?
I am a big believer that people are good, however, systems can go bad. Responsibility equals taking ownership of our actions, explaining our actions well and deciding to not make a personal move for the common good. (Or also making a personal move, e.g. picking up our trash, for the common good.) Such philosophical, ethical – even psychological – decisions often have to take a step back for innovation to move fast.
What inspired me to go into the field of responsible quantum technology is the fact that I have a parallel medical and scientific background. Design of clinical trials is very much focused on vigilance. Drugs have to be not only effective, but also safe. Equally, a clinical trial has to be of clinical importance and of statistical significance. Both concepts of i) defining what is important and ii) testing whether a system works like the idea in my head, have often gripped me. Somebody once told me “Alex, you are a diligent person.” The older I get, the more I think it is true. The more consciously we plan and oversee our actions today, the less we risk worrisome risks in the future.
For responsible quantum technology, what gripped me most was the educational aspect and the allure of “keeping an oversight”. As I started into the quantum computing field at young age and at a quite early stage, I grew with the field. From black-and-white ASCII circuit diagrams to the elaborate simulation visualizations which we have now. In other words, my “forest of quantum concepts” grew sequentially, tree by tree. In contrast, today scientists, companies and media are communicating new findings daily. We lose sight of the trees at the sake of a large forest. I see it as my responsibility to path comprehensive ways through the forest and act as catalyst for a healthy quantum ecosystem.
Nevertheless, I do fear that focusing on responsibility might make me a “worse” scientist. If I decide not to move as fast, it might never happen for me to innovate as effectively as others.
You’re currently working on a Project that focuses on Quantum Hardware, Simulation and Education. Can you explain what that means and who this work targets?
Yes, of course! Maybe the forest analogy fits nicely here again. The aim of the project is to find a taxonomy or ontology for quantum technologies. Ideally, we would like to track the field and iteratively condense the most important innovative improvements into comprehensive regulatory whitepapers, or educational content for the general public.
A big part of the project is targeted towards connecting best scientists all around the world and enabling them to exchange ideas, get funding and coordinate research. The aim is to become a communication hub between researchers, regulators, and educators and to build the first regularly updated overview of quantum devices.
Could you elaborate on the concept and taxonomy of the Quantum Trials Framework that you introduce in your research? How does it differ from traditional perspectives in AI and QT governance?
I do not think it only differs from traditional perspectives! Rather for example, the European Union has released the creation of a taxonomy for the European AI Ecosystem.
We often praise new achievement in science and at work. We want to contribute the next new thing. But why is that? Racing towards novelty, makes us prone to disrespect previous approaches, it hinders us to transfer learnings from the literature and from giving other people credit for having done an amazing job already.
On the other hand, by taking an existing approach and putting a twist to it, we can transfer knowledge and skills powerfully and enable stable data collection for the next generation to come. This is what the Quantum Trials framework aims at. In an upcoming paper I co-wrote with I. Glenn Cohen (Deputy Dean at Harvard Law School and Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics) and yourself (Mauritz Kop, Founding Director, Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology) we take the FDA framework and map quantum technology development to it. By this, suddenly quantum technology becomes easily comprehensible to a vast number of people, from medical professionals to bioengineers and regulators.
Instead of looking for what is not there (“what is the next new thing”), we rather look at what is present (“what is established, safe, accepted”). We then identify where the FDA analogy breaks down and with a refined taxonomy (which makes communication even more transparent) adapt Phase I to Phase IV definitions into the best Quantum Trials framework possible.
In theory, Phase I (= small idea starting in the lab) to Phase IV (= product on market) could be a way of thinking applicable to almost any technology class for regulatory action.
Your methodological approach involves using systematic data analysis to initiate the first Quantum Trial database. Can you delve into the challenges and advantages of employing this approach?
The challenge is definitely that we are considering real people behind every new quantum technology. They have full knowledge of their device or algorithm, however, limited time. Often, in fundamental science and early developmental stages – where horizon scanning would ideally start – the regulatory and ethical points have to be carefully balanced with other critical questions.
In other words, we do not want to intervene with innovation at a too early stage, ask for too much from scientists and researchers, or overregulate young quantum technology.
Therefore, instead of outsourcing efforts, we first try to systematically collect, review, and analyze most recent publications in-house. We define a taxonomy from these findings to later be discussed and peer-reviewed among the community without requiring substantial time resources from physicists, regulators, industry stakeholders. This of course pushes personal boundaries and time budgets.
Nevertheless, the big advantage is that we keep the overview and can invite the people with best focus on the topic for discussions. Another advantage is that we can visualize a taxonomy. Me being a very visual person, it helps to put topics into a connective space, to give things a true “perspective”. Building a systematic taxonomy then naturally leads to building a structured database, in the sense that we can use classification, labelling and clustering on research articles.
What are your views on the importance of building bridges between academia, industry, policy, and the general public?
This is exactly what the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology is here for. We have to build bridges, bridges that are beloved places for travelers to pass over. Ideally, we should avoid empty bridges, shallow meetings, talk without true connections.
I recently talked to a historian (you know, building a science—humanities bridge 
) and was introduced to the bridge of Avignon, known as Pont Saint-Bénézet. The story behind it is fascinating: A young shepherd, his name was Bénézet, collected money, support from church and community, and took agency so they built a bridge of stone across the Rhône. On its own this sounds a bit lame. However, this was the 12th century. Past crossing had consisted of wooden footbridges and ferries where every trade had to pass over. Building a stone bridge eased trade and travel enormously, Avignon flourished. The Bridge-Building Brotherhood was established (which also include sisters) and around Europe bridges were built, catapulting medieval trade and exchange to a new era. Bénézet died at around age twenty, but being a catalyst for building bridges changed the way how people travelled and how our ideas travelled.
We can take him as strong inspiration that building solid bridges takes considerate effort but makes great (ex)change and trade between communities happen. Everybody has a lot on their plates these days, stakeholders may go back to separate silos after a while. It takes considerate effort to design bridges of “structural integrity” for highly sought-after people. But we should never not try.
You’ve had opportunities to study and work all over the world, originally from Austria studying in Innsbruck, with diverse experience from CERN and BASF to the European Space Agency, and a doctoral position at Max Planck, you are now here at Stanford. Would you say this position has benefited your professional goals? If so, how?
Stanford is a unique place for people to connect ideas in a very mindful way. To me, the position was not a goal to achieve, it is rather an extension of my love for physics and technology. Innovation lies at the core of what Stanford as an institution stands for. Being surrounded and in contact with highly educated and extremely curious people gives one amazing energy. It makes me very grateful for what science and technology can do, what good education looks like, and pushes me professionally to give back in different ways to people all around the globe as best as possible. I try to act responsibly in this position, with lots of kindness from my heart, and to learn as much as possible from senior people in our team to eventually become a good scientist.
And how did your career choices lead you to the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology?
It was like … scrambled pancakes? Sweet but confusing? I am not sure how to draw a linear trajectory, how things concretely came together. Consistently showing up, taking a stance for quantum technology at conferences around Europe and being involved in simulation and education projects. I am naturally interested in physics, one advice is to like the topics you work on more than the position. Then the cool places where you fit into can find you. Or as Richard Feynman said, “Don’t think about who you want to be, but what you want to do.”
For me, the question of what I want to do is exploring the microscopic scales of life and nature, to build cool tools and to not harm other people.
In terms of career success so far, which accomplishments are you most proud of?
Tutoring younger students and seeing them become happier people. 
Many members of the Stanford Community are multitalented and double/triple educated. What are your hobbies and hidden talents?
As briefly mentioned, I have a chemistry/biotech/molecular medicine background. I absolutely love bacteria because they are extraordinarily versatile and true survival heroes. I like looking through microscopes, and doodle with black pens on a white sheet of paper. I love investigating questions of life.
My hidden talent is being a decent cook and walking. It is truly transformative to take time and see sunrises, sunsets, rain, forests, autumn golden light or spring flowers. One interesting quote I recently heard was: “In old times, people had hobbies. Now people have side projects and side hustles.”
What is something that people would be surprised to learn about you?
I almost went to school to become a professional gardener before I decided to pursue chemistry.