Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

The US is missing a critical piece of infrastructure common in other leading tech ecosystems: an institution like Belgium's IMEC. These public-private entities focus on the pre-competitive phase between academic research and commercial development, de-risking technology and shortening cycle times—a crucial gap in the US quantum strategy.

Related Insights

Illinois is strategically positioning itself as a national quantum computing leader by orchestrating collaboration between universities, national labs, and state funding. This targeted, deep-tech focus contrasts with the broader, more common goal of simply becoming an "AI hub," showcasing a more nuanced approach to regional economic development.

While Britain excels in quantum research and software, its progress is hindered by a critical weakness: a lack of domestic infrastructure for specialized hardware. The country remains overly reliant on foreign providers for essential components like ultra-cold refrigerators and quantum chip packaging, creating a significant strategic vulnerability.

An often overlooked indicator of national competitiveness in quantum is 'cycle time'—the duration from idea to testable prototype. While the US excels at research, long fabrication lead times (e.g., 18 months for a photonic circuit) create a major disadvantage compared to regions where it takes weeks, hindering the rate of innovation.

While the race for quantum computing hardware is underway, a major blind spot is the software. Quantum software doesn't exist yet, and current software giants are not prepared. The U.S. needs a strategic public-private effort to build this ecosystem from scratch to capitalize on future hardware breakthroughs.

In-Q-Tel, a nonprofit VC associated with the CIA, provides the early-stage equity funding that breakthrough technologies need to survive. This model successfully addresses a market failure where traditional VCs won't invest and government loans are unsuitable for tech startups.

The quantum industry's structure, with its various modalities (like drug types) and long, high-risk development cycles, mirrors biotech. Policies should adopt similar models, like advanced market commitments and support for phase-based trials, to accelerate commercialization.

CZI focuses on creating new tools for science, a 10-15 year process that's often underfunded. Instead of just giving grants, they build and operate their own institutes, physically co-locating scientists and engineers to accelerate breakthroughs in areas traditional funding misses.

To accelerate progress and maintain a competitive lead over China, John Martinis's new company is partnering with Applied Materials. They are leveraging modern, 300mm semiconductor fabrication tools—which are restricted from China—to build next-generation quantum devices with higher quality and scalability.

To invest in high-risk, transformative fields like quantum computing, structure portfolios with three tiers: established leaders (e.g., IBM) forming the core, "enabler" companies providing key components (e.g., Honeywell), and a smaller allocation to purely speculative startups (e.g., IonQ) to capture upside while managing volatility.

Unlike semiconductors, where the U.S. has a substantial lead, quantum is a new field where the competitive moat is small. This creates a thin margin for error in industrial policy and R&D strategy, demanding a higher degree of precision from the outset.