Quantum - Susannah Glickman

“'Philosophy is too Important to be Left to the Philosophers': On Cold War Crises and Quantum Technologies," Susannah Glickman, Assistant Professor of History, Stony Brook University

In October 2025, the Science, Technology, and Social Values Lab at the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) hosted the first in a new lecture series: Quantum, Broadly Considered. The series explores how unresolved questions in physics and mathematics have shaped, and continue to shape, the possibilities of quantum research.

Quantum technology is far from new. In this lecture, Susannah Glickman, Assistant Professor of History at Stony Brook University, traced the field back to its prioritization for funding during the Cold War, exploring how this has shaped the field’s perceived historic and future value.

In the 1960-70s, an intellectual crisis (fundamental questions about reality, raised by quantum mechanics) coincided with a political and economic crisis (low national morale and deep funding cuts due to the Vietnam War). Physicists therefore needed a way to redefine their field’s societal contribution and value to rebuild its image and attract new investment.

This prompted its key proponents to spin a narrative that linked physics to economic prosperity. Quantum computing provided the ideal subject within that framework—sounding appealingly futuristic, promising everything, and always needing additional funding to realize its full potential.

This positioning is still reinforced today. Recent presidential administrations in the US have prioritized quantum information science research and development and have tied America’s future and progress to it.

Creating Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

Glickman invited critical thinking around what happens when those who build technologies also control the historical narratives about those technologies. The main risk of this is that it creates self-perpetuating funding mechanisms, which may be divorced from actual technological capabilities or tangible and meaningful benefits.

Her multi-faceted analysis drew on several important influencers of modern thinking and the ideologies and theories they’ve perpetuated. Among these were theoretical physicist John Wheeler—a student of Niels Bohr, a founding father of quantum mechanics. A mentor to most early quantum computing pioneers, Wheeler was instrumental in connecting physics, history, and funding. He worked on the Manhattan Project and hydrogen bomb, coined the term “black hole”; and developed the concept of a “participatory universe”. At the other end of the spectrum, Glickman highlighted Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel Corporation and the creator of Moore’s Law—which is an observation, rather than a law of physics. In planting the notion that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles roughly every two years, he provided a template for tech inevitability (designed to increased sales).

Returning to today, and why the history-of-science narrative matters, Glickman noted that the thinking fostered by Wheeler and others is still applied. AI attracts funding using the same “inevitable progress” narrative; biotech promises revolutionary breakthroughs; and nuclear energy is positioned as the future. Each field creates a narrative around discovering or developing something world-historical, so that it isn’t questioned but keeps the funding flowing to ensure that the prediction bears out.

Impartiality Matters

Glickman left the audience with much to consider, in the knowledge that a great deal of what is assumed to be inevitable about technological progress is actually a carefully constructed narrative that serves the interests of those who created it. The danger is one of a growing divide between what scientists tell the public and policymakers and what they themselves understand to be their technology’s limits, she warned. That is, when policies are made, and funding allocated, based on hype—not necessarily based on what works.

Following the lecture, scholars discussed the evolving landscape of quantum development during a Q&A session moderated by Professor Nelson. Glickman, Nelson, and audience members considered the possibility that the narrative-funding link has become so entrenched that understanding it may not be enough to influence a change.

The lecture’s main theme and discussion points serve as a reminder of the importance of maintaining a healthy skepticism in the face of “inevitability” narratives linked to technology, and of questioning who benefits from that positioning--and the implication that there is no alternative may be a deliberate deflection from other realities.

Too often, funding follows stories rather than capabilities. The past is used to make certain futures seem destined, and control of historical narrative is control of funding and policy. The likelihood is that other technological futures are possible, albeit rendered invisible by dominant narratives. Being aware of this, and paying attention to the widening gap between hype and reality, in quantum information science and other emerging fields, is critical.