Insider Brief
- The White House’s new science strategy outlines a new model for American innovation that emphasizes mission-driven research, public-private partnerships, manufacturing and regional ecosystems, a framework that closely aligns with how much of the quantum industry has already evolved.
- Rather than focusing solely on scientific discovery, the policy argues that future U.S. technology leadership will depend on stronger connections between research, engineering, manufacturing, workforce development and commercialization, principles already reflected in many quantum initiatives.
- The report suggests the quantum sector may be well positioned under the new federal science strategy because many of its existing ecosystem-building practices mirror the institutional approach the administration now advocates.
- Image: Photo by Jametlene Reskp on Unsplash
The White House’s new science strategy proposes a different way of organizing American innovation, one that could reshape how the U.S. quantum sector develops over the next decade.
Yet many of the report’s central recommendations describe an innovation model that parts of the quantum industry have already begun to adopt. One could even say the industry has been a pioneer in building aspects of the model.
Science: A New Golden Age, a 122-page report by White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios, is built around the idea that the postwar model of American science has become too rigid for today’s technological competition. While the document addresses the entire U.S. research enterprise, it identifies quantum information science alongside artificial intelligence and nuclear technology as one of the strategic technologies central to maintaining U.S. leadership.
Unlike previous federal quantum strategies, however, the report spends relatively little time discussing quantum technology itself. Instead, it focuses on the institutions, incentives and partnerships needed to translate scientific leadership into industrial and economic strength.
The report challenges what it describes as the “linear model” of innovation in which universities conduct basic research, industry commercializes discoveries and government funds early-stage science. According to the report, today’s technological advances emerge through continuous interaction between fundamental research, engineering and commercialization rather than moving sequentially from one stage to the next.
For today’s quantum ecosystems, many aspects of the strategy will likely not result in a dramatic change and seems more reflective, rather than transformative of how they do business.
For example, today’s leading quantum computing companies continue publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers while simultaneously developing commercial hardware. National laboratories increasingly collaborate directly with startups, while universities launch spinouts that remain closely connected to academic research groups. Engineering challenges encountered while building quantum processors frequently generate new scientific questions, just as scientific advances often depend on engineering breakthroughs in areas such as cryogenics, photonics and semiconductor fabrication.
Rather than viewing these interactions as exceptions, the report demonstrates that they have become the norm across advanced technologies.
For quantum ecosystem builders, the implication is that regional strategies focused primarily on moving discoveries from universities into startups may no longer reflect how innovation actually occurs. Stronger ecosystems may instead depend on creating dense connections among universities, national laboratories, established companies, startups, manufacturers, investors and end users.
Moving Beyond Silos
The report recommends that research is organized around national objectives rather than scientific disciplines. It recommends that government establish clear technological goals, create grand challenges and coordinate public and private resources around those priorities.
Applied to quantum technology, this may lead to ecosystems opting not to organize around individual hardware platforms and modalities.
Much of today’s quantum landscape remains divided by modality, with communities and ecosystems centered on, for example, superconducting qubits, trapped ions, neutral atoms, photonics or quantum networking. Those areas remain technically important, but the report suggests that future innovation systems may be more effective when organized around solving national problems.
Under these guidelines, regional initiatives might be built by focusing on applications such as secure communications, precision navigation, advanced manufacturing, pharmaceutical discovery, logistics optimization or energy infrastructure rather than around individual quantum architectures.
Such an approach would also encourage greater participation by industrial users, who increasingly play a role in shaping technology development rather than waiting for mature products to emerge.
Manufacturing Innovation, Innovating Manufacturing
Throughout the report, Kratsios writes that the United States has too often pioneered important technologies only to see manufacturing capabilities and downstream economic benefits develop elsewhere. The report calls for reconnecting scientific discovery with domestic production, supply chains and industrial capacity.
For the quantum industry, that recommendation would extend well beyond quantum computers themselves.
The sector is extremely complex and depends on suppliers producing specialized lasers, cryogenic systems, vacuum equipment, photonic components, semiconductor devices, advanced packaging and control electronics. Those enabling technologies often receive less attention than quantum processors, yet they form much of the industrial base needed to scale the industry.
The report suggests that these manufacturing capabilities should be viewed as integral components of the research ecosystem rather than downstream economic activity.
New Institutions Work Alongside Traditional Ones
The report also argues that universities and companies should no longer be viewed as the only organizations responsible for advancing science.
It recommends expanding support for new institutional models, including mission-driven research organizations, ARPA-style programs, time-limited engineering organizations known as X-Labs and curiosity-driven research institutes designed to pursue long-term scientific questions.
Many elements of today’s quantum ecosystem already resemble this broader institutional landscape.
Regional quantum hubs, public-private partnerships, shared fabrication facilities, testing centers and nonprofit organizations increasingly serve as intermediaries connecting academia, government and industry. Rather than replacing universities or private companies, these organizations help coordinate activities that fall between traditional institutional boundaries.
The report suggests that these types of organizations may become increasingly important across emerging technologies.
Another recommendation likely to resonate with the quantum community is the report’s approach to pre-competitive collaboration.
It points to historical examples in which industry and government jointly addressed engineering bottlenecks before companies competed commercially, indicating that similar consortia could accelerate progress in strategically important technologies.
The quantum industry already faces several shared technical challenges that fit this model.
Standards development, benchmarking methods, cryogenic infrastructure, quantum networking interfaces, packaging technologies and workforce development all represent areas where collaboration could strengthen the industry without reducing commercial competition.
Such efforts could reduce duplication while allowing companies to differentiate themselves in hardware performance, software capabilities and commercial applications.
Regional Clusters
The report backs the idea of geographically concentrated innovation ecosystems where research institutions, manufacturers, workforce development organizations and industry operate in close proximity. It recommends expanding regional innovation hubs and manufacturing institutes while strengthening connections among universities, national laboratories and local industry.
That recommendation aligns with the development of several established quantum regions, including Chicago, Boston, Colorado, Waterloo, Delft and others that combine research organizations with growing industrial communities.
While national and international collaborations remain important, dense local ecosystems continue to provide advantages by accelerating collaboration, workforce development and knowledge transfer, according to the report.
The report also recommends strengthening movement between academia, industry and government by expanding industrial fellowships, joint research centers and programs that allow researchers to move more easily across sectors.
That reflects another trend already visible within quantum technology.
Researchers increasingly move between universities, startups, national laboratories and established technology companies during their careers. Rather than treating those transitions as departures from academic science, the report frames them as an increasingly important feature of modern innovation.
According to the report, federal agencies should evaluate funding portfolios more actively, experiment with new funding mechanisms and continuously assess whether institutions remain aligned with scientific needs.
For quantum ecosystem builders, that raises broader questions about how success should be measured.
Traditional indicators such as startup formation, venture capital investment and publication counts remain important, but they capture only part of an ecosystem’s development. Manufacturing capacity, supply-chain resilience, customer adoption, workforce growth and sustained public-private partnerships may increasingly become equally important indicators of long-term competitiveness.
Although Science: A New Golden Age identifies quantum information science as one of America’s strategic technologies, its principal contribution to the quantum sector may lie elsewhere.
Rather than proposing new quantum-specific initiatives, the report offers a broad architecture for how advanced technology ecosystems should evolve. It suggests that leadership will depend less on producing individual scientific breakthroughs than on creating institutions capable of connecting research, engineering, manufacturing, investment and commercialization more effectively.
