Quantum for good through a lens of technosolutionism: A critical-constructive view

‘Quantum for Good’ (Q4G) has emerged as a guiding rationale for quantum technology development, emphasising its potential to address societal challenges and serve the public good. Through this normative ambition, Q4G echoes the language of responsible innovation. At the same time, using technology to address complex social problems has been critiqued as ‘technosolutionism’—the belief that technology is an effective means to solve non-technological problems. In this paper, we examine whether and how this critique applies to Q4G. We adopt a principally neutral perspective on technosolutionism, recognising both the potential and limits of technological solutions, and use this as a critical-constructive lens to assess the normative underpinnings of Q4G. Specifically, we develop a set of guiding questions to scrutinise the ethical dimensions of proposed technosolutions and apply this framework to Q4G. We argue that, to live up to its commitment to societal good and to avoid becoming a legitimising narrative for existing innovation agendas or reducing complex issues to technosolutionist challenges, Q4G must remain attentive to the moral and sociopolitical dimensions of the problems it targets and the solutions it advances.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Responsible Technology
Published
2026-02-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2026.100157
Primary Topic
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Quantum for good through a lens of technosolutionism: A critical-constructive view

Clare Shelley-Egan, Eline de Jong
Journal of Responsible Technology
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
article

Quantum for good through a lens of technosolutionism: A critical-constructive view

Clare Shelley-Egan, Eline de Jong
article en

Abstract

‘Quantum for Good’ (Q4G) has emerged as a guiding rationale for quantum technology development, emphasising its potential to address societal challenges and serve the public good. Through this normative ambition, Q4G echoes the language of responsible innovation. At the same time, using technology to address complex social problems has been critiqued as ‘technosolutionism’—the belief that technology is an effective means to solve non-technological problems. In this paper, we examine whether and how this critique applies to Q4G. We adopt a principally neutral perspective on technosolutionism, recognising both the potential and limits of technological solutions, and use this as a critical-constructive lens to assess the normative underpinnings of Q4G. Specifically, we develop a set of guiding questions to scrutinise the ethical dimensions of proposed technosolutions and apply this framework to Q4G. We argue that, to live up to its commitment to societal good and to avoid becoming a legitimising narrative for existing innovation agendas or reducing complex issues to technosolutionist challenges, Q4G must remain attentive to the moral and sociopolitical dimensions of the problems it targets and the solutions it advances.

Journal of Responsible TechnologyVol. 25
University of Amsterdam (NL), Delft University of Technology (NL)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.