Policy sabbaticals, a bit of Dworkin, a bit of Dweck

As I keep trying to create technical content, columns on Nature continue to interrupt me. Seems like these really are good sources of inspiration.

This time the topic is “what to do in a sabbatical year”?

Traditionally, tenured university professors receive support - partial or total - to spend periods of time working outside of their home institutions. These sabbatical periods are usually taken once every 7 years (for sabbaticals lasting 12 months) or every 3.5 years (for 6 months). The goal of this is to propitiate researchers with opportunities to engage with new communities, research topics, and stimulate relations between institutions.

In a World View column last week, Jordan Dworkin provides an uncommon suggestion: spend time in government. I won’t be repetitive and reproduce all comments and reasoning made in the article: they are very sound and meaningful. I strongly recommend my colleagues who work at universities and research institutes to read this article and look kindly at the points made.

I do, however, have a feeling that many of my friends in the physical sciences might believe that the impact they can make in policy matters less than that of health and social scientists. So, let me provide a clear example of the type of frustration this kind of attitude can bring back to the community.

This past week, one of my academic friends sent me a message containing the following screenshot from a conversation in the X platform:

In quantum computing, the complaint of hype and misdirected resource allocation is a constant topic. The importance of government in funding sustained research and development, but also in helping fund the commercialization of quantum technologies, cannot be overstated. Nor should be its role in fostering the relations between researchers and private industry, which indeed are very healthy. Creating career opportunities for youth among the physical sciences is one of my favorite aspects of the quantum tech industry. But this stereotypical attitude of academics seeing politicians as incapable of having meaningful conversations on topics with technical depth, does not help.

I’d like to take a position more aligned with a growth mindset and say there is no “catch-22”. No conversation I have ever had with politically engaged folks suggests that. With enough time and attention, and the right environment, I think it is very possible to help inform policy-makers on physical sciences and quantum technologies. Following Jordan Dworkin’s proposition and promoting more Tours of Service among the physics community seems a good starting idea for that.

And without trying to open a can of worms, I don’t want to miss the opportunity here: the vast majority of the members of the quantum tech community I know are seriously engaged in distributing sound information, opinions, and recommendations. I would not deny having seen hype, but I don’t see it being systematic or, so far, damaging. As far as business goes, commercialization of quantum tech is not an easy subject and the whole industry is working to find the sustainable paths to success.

And to be sure: these opinions are all personal and should never be assumed to be supported by my employer.

• 2024 7