Quantum science carries risks and benefits to society yet it is hard to communicate these to the public. First then, what is the public’s perception of this topic? The NI’s Gudrun Reijnierse, VU visitor Aletta Meinsma, Sanne Kristensen, Ionica Smeets and Julia Cramer recently published in Quantum Science and Technology: “Is everything quantum ‘spooky and weird’? An exploration of popular communication about quantum science and technology in TEDx talks“. Their article delves into how quantum science and technology are communicated in popular media, specifically TEDx talks.

The study analyzed 501 TEDx talks to understand how experts and non-experts frame quantum science. Previous research found four problematic framing of quantum technology. Firstly, quantum science and technology are often framed as spooky or enigmatic, which might intrigue or confuse the public rather than inform. Secondly, in communicating quantum science accessibly, there can be a lack of explanation regarding the underlying concepts of quantum 2.0 technology, such as superposition, entanglement, or contextuality. Thirdly, the framing of quantum technology may be predominantly in terms of public good, with a disproportionate emphasis on benefits over risks. Lastly, quantum computing can be overemphasised, overshadowing other significant quantum technologies.

The researchers asked:

• How often are quantum science and technology framed in terms of being spooky and enigmatic?
• When quantum 2.0 technology is mentioned, how often are the underlying quantum concepts explained on which the technology is based?
• How often are quantum science and technology framed in terms of economic development/competitiveness and social progress?
• How often are quantum science and technology framed in terms of benefits and risks
• Which quantum technologies are mentioned most often?
• How does the popular communication about quantum science and technology of quantum experts and non-experts compare?

Interestingly, about a quarter of these talks described quantum science as ‘spooky’ or enigmatic, which could influence how the public perceives these advanced concepts. Indeed, this framing could hinder public engagement. Despite this, around half of the talks did explain at least one underlying quantum concept like superposition or entanglement.

One key finding is that quantum technology is often framed in terms of public good, with much more emphasis on potential benefits than risks. This could lead to an overly optimistic view of quantum technologies without considering possible challenges or ethical implications.

Moreover, there’s a strong focus on quantum computing, sometimes at the expense of other important quantum technologies. This narrow focus might limit public understanding of the full range of applications that quantum science offers. See the figure below for an illustration of the quantum computing dominance:

Quantum computing is disproportionately mentioned

The study also found differences in how experts and non-experts talk about quantum science. Experts tend to discuss more than just quantum computing and are less likely to frame it as ‘spooky.’

This research highlights the importance of how we talk about complex scientific topics like quantum science. The way we frame these discussions can shape public understanding and attitudes towards emerging technologies. You can read the full article “Is everything quantum ‘spooky and weird’? An exploration of popular communication about quantum science and technology in TEDx talks” here.