In this contribution, I set out an argument for an approach to quantum ethics that takes into account the importance of the attribution of ‘meaning’ to a new technology (cf. Grunwald, 2017). Ethical debates and debates about responsibility emerge from the intertwining of scientific expectations or projections and their possible social meanings. Meanings can be considered a form of intervention; while they do not necessarily fix the meaning of the technology under discussion, they can still have real impact on how debates are carried out. Ethicists and social scientists are increasingly engaged and contributing to ‘meaning making’. Just as we call on scientists and technology developers to refrain from overhyping their scientific promises or warn against the tendency for scientists to see publics as having an irrational phobia of new technologies, we should also be mindful of our contributions to the meaning of technology development with respect to the ethical and societal issues we choose to emphasise, or conversely, downplay. Starting from the notion of a ‘heuristics of continuity’ (Joly, 2015) which emphasises a shift in attention from novelty to a heuristic of continuity, and from a focus on uncertainties to attention to what we know, I engage with lessons learned from past experiments in preparing for the responsible anticipation and embedding of new technologies in society. The discourse around nanotechnology, in particular, is relevant, given important synergies with quantum technology discourse. I seek to contribute to openings for a ‘responsible’ ethics of quantum technology.

This presentation is part of the panel Assigning meaning to quantum technologies and their development