America is hijacking Britain's hopes of a tech revolution
With its thatched cottages, 11th-century church and grade-II listed buildings, Harwell appears to be the quintessential Oxfordshire village.
A brisk stroll through the nearby fields, however, and you will soon find yourself in the beating heart of Britain's scientific community.
Harwell Campus, previously a Second World War airfield base for bomber squadrons and gliders, is home to 7,500 scientists and £3bn worth of technological infrastructure.
A vast spherical building housing the Diamond Light Source, a powerful particle accelerator, dominates much of the campus.
Yet the hub is also home to the UK's National Quantum Computing Centre.
This 40,000 sq ft facility, opened by science minister Lord Patrick Vallance last year, is designed to hold 12 cutting-edge quantum computers.
These machines, Lord Vallance said in October, would help 'solve some of the biggest challenges we face, whether it's delivering advances in healthcare, enhancing energy efficiency, tackling climate change, or inventing new materials'.
The centre is integral to Oxford's hope of succeeding in the global race to crack quantum computing, as it competes with tech giants from both the US and China.
These quantum machines should, the theory goes, be able to outperform classical computers many times over by relying on the principles of quantum mechanics.
However, it appears the rise of Oxford as a quantum hub has not gone unnoticed.
Last week, a 60-person start-up called Oxford Ionics was sold in a $1bn (£730m) deal to US rival IonQ, a $10bn US-listed quantum giant.
The takeover, made up almost entirely of the company's shares, landed Chris Ballance and Tom Hart, Oxford Ionics's founders, a paper fortune of $180m.
Driving the deal were breakthroughs in developing 'trapped ion' quantum semiconductors, as Oxford Ionics developed chips that were twice as powerful as their rivals and less prone to errors.
For a start-up founded in a basement in Oxford, the deal represented quite the outcome.
Niccolo de Masi, chief executive of IonQ and a Cambridge University graduate, claimed the deal would create a company 'head and shoulders' above its rivals.
He also stressed that Oxford would become IonQ's 'global R&D hub'.
However, the deal has renewed questions over whether Britain has the ability to scale cutting-edge start-ups to help them compete on the global stage.
'Oxford Ionics epitomises British innovation,' said Henry Lee, a strategist at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change said last week. 'Brilliant Oxford research. Great early backing. Promising tech. But when it came time to scale? Had to sell to America.'
Founders in the nascent quantum sector have similarly mixed feelings about the deal.
Sebastian Weidt, the chief executive of Universal Quantum, says the sale was a 'testament to the amazing foundations we have in quantum computing in the UK'.
However, he adds it was also an 'example of a long list of companies failing to achieve escape velocity independently in the UK'.
Britain was an early mover in quantum technology.
In 2014, under David Cameron's coalition, the government earmarked £1bn in state funding for UK scientists and experts in quantum.
Rishi Sunak renewed this pledge in 2023 by promising £2.5bn over the coming decade.
This helped fund years of learning, as most quantum computers have so far only been useful for esoteric research and experiments, such as complicated maths problems with little practical use.
Yet some technology leaders now believe quantum computing technology is at an inflecion point.
This includes Jensen Huang, chief executive of $3.5 trillion tech giant Nvidia, who said last week said useful quantum computers were 'within reach'.
Inevitably, this has posed questions about whether Britain is ready to capitalise.
Late last year, Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Science, announced £100m to fund five quantum hubs in the UK. Another £121m was set aside in April.
However, industry insiders fear this falls short of the amount industry had expected under the £2.5bn strategy set out by Sunak.
Ashley Montanaro, co-founder of Bristol start-up Phasecraft, says: 'Delivery of this funding has lagged behind – especially on the software side.
'It's no surprise that UK quantum companies are looking at opportunities beyond these shores.'
Oxford Ionics is not the only UK quantum business bought out by a larger US counterpart in recent years.
In 2021, Psiquantum, one of the most promising quantum companies founded by Bristol University professor Jeremy O'Brien, moved to Silicon Valley to secure funds. It is now in the process of raising funds at a $6bn valuation.
That same year, another start-up called Cambridge Quantum Computing agreed to merge with a unit of US giant Honeywell. Much of its team is now based in the US.
Some investors say gaining access to later-stage funding remains a challenge for European businesses in cutting-edge 'deep tech' sectors like quantum.
Hermann Hauser, founding partner of Amadeus Partners and an investor in Oxford Ionics, says: 'Finding enough money for European scale-ups is our number one problem.'
Rob Jesudason, chief executive of Serendipity Capital, an investor in Quantinuum, says the UK 'still lacks' the 'deep tech-orientated capital to scale these organisations'.
Not everyone agrees, including Hussein Kanji, of investment firm Hoxton Ventures, who says that 'too many of us worry that we sell our best companies prematurely'.
Meanwhile, Steve Brierley, chief executive of quantum business Riverlane, insists that the Oxford Ionics deal is a 'sign that our quantum sector is maturing and attracting serious international attention'.
Rather than this being a problem, he says, 'that is something to be proud of and to build on'.
Ballance, of Oxford Ionics, adds that Britain has actually done well to retain such a large proportion of its quantum talent over the past decade.
Without the UK championing the technology, he says he would have taken his company to the US a decade ago.
Instead, he has built a $1bn business from its base in Oxford, which he says will continue to house its main research centre.
Similarly, IonQ's De Massi claims a UK-US tie-up is no bad thing, particularly as the West seeks to defeat China in the race for quantum supremacy.
'We are the best chance at beating China in the quantum space race,' says De Masi. 'This is critical to UK and US national economic security.
'We have to beat those other guys together.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
35 minutes ago
- UPI
U.S. company to provide $6 billion loan for British nuclear power project
Protesters hold banners outside Hinkley Point power station in Somerset, United Kingdom, in 2011 against EDF Energy's plans to renew the site with two new reactors. The project began in 2017 and has had delays and funding problems File Photo by Ben Birchuk/EPA June 20 (UPI) -- Apollo, a U.S. asset management group, plans to provide a $6 billion loan to the British nuclear project Hinkley Point C being built by a French multinational electric utility company. Hinkley's estimated cost has soared from $23.7 billion to almost $60.6 billion and won't be operational until at least 2029, Baha Breaking News reported. Construction began in 2017. Apollo will provide an investment-grade debt financing package at an interest rate below 7% for the project developer, Electricite de France, sources told CNBC and the Financial Times. Apollo, which was founded in 1990 by Leonard Black, Josh Harris and Marc Rowan, manages capital for institutional and individual investors. Apollo, headquartered in New York City, had revenue of $26.11 billion in 2024 with a net income of $6.373 billion. The loan has a maximum maturity of 12 years. EDF is building two new nuclear reactors at the site in Somerset and will be able to borrow $2 billion each of the three years as part of the package. The company has had a shortfall since China General Nuclear Power Group, which was supposed to provide a third of the cost of the project, stopped providing further financing in 2023. CGN was removed by the British government from another project -- Sizewell C -- because of concerns about Chinese influence. The funding could be used for other British projects by EDF. Jamshid Ehsani, head of global principal structured finance at Apollo, described the deal as the "largest ever" sterling private credit deal. "It's going to help finance a critical, low-carbon nuclear project. This is the business Apollo is in today," he said. "Europe is a huge focus for us."
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
I've ditched HR to free my company from the social-justice police
'I want to be the first company without HR.' It was just a throwaway comment I made this month at a conference called Freedom Fest — but the audience went wild, and the line went viral in an Instagram post with over 5 million views. 'They produce nothing,' I continued. 'They monitor our words. They tell us what we can and cannot say. Advertisement 'They inhibit creativity. It's bad for business.' At my own start-up — XX-XY Athletics, the only brand standing up for the protection of women's sports — I'll be damned if I'm going to let the ladies of 'The View' run around policing my employees' conversations. We started with no Human Resources department a year ago, and we'll continue with no HR as we grow. Advertisement My statement touched a nerve because anyone who has worked in corporate America has been subjected to the censorious 'Head Girl' rule-making emanating from HR departments. And they are tired of it. When I started my business career in the early 1990s, HR was responsible for recruiting, benefits and payroll — that was it. As I moved up the ladder and found myself in executive meetings, the HR leader weighed in last on key business decisions, if at all. Advertisement Thirty years on, HR leaders are calling themselves 'Chief Human Resources Officers,' and they proclaim their power with reckless and off-topic abandon. HR departments today are packed with Tracy Flicks, the way-too-eager high schooler played by Reese Witherspoon in the movie 'Election.' Flick is the archetypal 'Head Girl,' a term derived from the British school system and its tight hierarchy of internal discipline — ambitious and officious with little actual skill or intellect. Hand-raisers like these are not selected to lead for intelligence or ability, but for conscientiousness and a willingness to uphold 'the rules.' Advertisement That was fine when HR had no power. But now, after yearning for a seat at the table, HR's midwit elites have found a way to exert increasing influence in the corporate environment — leveraging social-justice buzzwords to accrue power and (what else?) make more rules. In the 2020s, HR asserts its newly found clout with tyrannical zeal. When I interviewed in 2023 for a CEO job at an $8 billion retailer, I made it all the way to the end of the corporate leadership receiving line, successfully fielding queries on my business acumen and brand-building accomplishments. My last interview was with the HR representative on the board. Her first question: 'Will you apologize for what you've done?' Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters What I'd 'done' was advocate for opening public schools during the COVID pandemic. By 2023 I'd been proven right. That didn't matter to the HR lady. I'd violated her tightly enforced script. Advertisement I didn't apologize, and I didn't get the job. Over the last two decades, HR has gone from operational support to Operation Head Girl Hall Monitor. They force-feed trainings about acceptable language; they make 'merit' out to be racist; and they set hiring criteria based on risk avoidance rather than excellence. But hiring people who don't offend anyone won't result in employees who take initiative and make things. Advertisement Am I being sexist in calling them Head Girls? In 2023, 76% of HR managers in the United States were female. The shoe fits. (And yes, men can be Head Girl types, too.) British academic Bruce Charlton explains the Head Girl 'can never be a creative genius because she does what other people want by the standard they most value.' That's why the Head Girls of HR made everyone add pronouns to their email signatures starting around 2020: Social standards. Not because it drove the business. Advertisement No, these time-suckers shift focus away from the business. Front-of-house employees — builders, makers and service providers — must spend a significant amount of time thinking about the words they use rather than their actual jobs. Critics of my viral comment pushed back at me: 'You need HR to avoid unnecessary risk!' they chorused. Right. That's the fear HR leverages to maintain its unearned influence. Advertisement Risk avoidance means hiring mediocre people with no opinions who never offend anyone. Those hires won't take my one-year-old start-up to big-brand status. I want big thinkers with creative minds. Sometimes these folks are disruptive. But there are no new products or breakthrough marketing campaigns without them. My company is a walking, talking HR violation. We 'misgender' all day long. In fact, speaking truth (as I call it) is required to work here. We're not in school anymore. We don't need a persnickety Miss Manners etiquette-enforcer telling us to be nice. I'll continue to go it alone without HR. I'll assume the so-called risk so I can lead in my own voice. And I'll succeed, or fail, on my own terms. Jennifer Sey is founder and CEO of XX-XY Athletics.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
I'm a teacher — AI is beating us in the fight for kids' minds
For almost two decades, my best friend and I have taught together in the same social studies department in the dusty urban landscape of California's Central Valley. He teaches US History to juniors; I teach government and economics to seniors. Twenty years of summer conversations have centered on how we can get better as teachers, diving into granular elements to improve the quality of our classes. We have refined exams, tweaked schedules and assignments, and altered our classrooms in countless ways in hopes of offering a better academic product to our students. For many years we would read a book together that had relevance for both of us, such as Jon Meacham's magisterial 'American Lion' on Andrew Jackson or a history of the Cold War by John Lewis Gaddis. We would joyfully discuss the books, pulling out different threads to bolster each of our courses in different ways. Not this summer. This year we're grappling with a Herculean task: how to counter the reality that our students, armed with artificial intelligence technologies that were the stuff of sci-fi just a few years ago, can cheat on virtually any assignment we give them. You name it, they can use AI to cheat on it. Math equations. Writing assignments. Document analysis. Research. Practice tests. Reading tasks. And it's doing measurable damage, according to a new MIT study that found diminished memory and learning activity in the brains of students who use AI — a result completely and utterly consistent with what so many of us are seeing in the classroom. Before ChatGPT, Claude or Perplexity, students had to take time to complete assignments. After all, that is the point of academic work: Committing time to focused mental labor — reading books, practicing math, writing essays — trains students' minds to process and comprehend new ideas. Whatever students were asked to do, they were expected to take time and use their own brains. Until recently, this wasn't considered unreasonable or outrageous. Mental labor, we understood, was transformative; becoming educated, obtaining knowledge and cultivating rational thought were treasures leading to a meaningful and full life. My students are casting those treasures aside as they choose AI's easy path. That's the deeper, more penetrating tragedy we teachers are coming to accept: AI is a classroom Gordian knot that cannot be untangled. Because it's not just homework — students use AI to write their emails and clean up their text messages, too. And with the ubiquity of personal tech, teachers witness it everywhere. Students offer up precise summaries of complex novels in seconds and solve difficult math equations in an instant. Large language models generate in moments lengthy essays that creepily mimic the quirks of human writing. Our students are normalizing mental mediocrity through an endless expectation of ease. Pew Research reports that 26% of US teens 'have used ChatGPT for schoolwork,' doubling the number that did so just two years ago. No offense to Pew, but that figure is absolute, unadulterated, unbelievable hogwash: I'm sure the number is much higher, and that it will meteorically rise in the years ahead. The truth is, the tools meant to catch cheating — plagiarism checkers, AI detectors — are deeply flawed. Teachers who think they can outsmart AI are fooling themselves. As one philosophy professor observed on Substack, 'Whatever success they imagine they have today in spotting computer-generated work will disappear with the next generation of AI, or the one after that.' Silicon Valley titans have spent the past decade destroying the mental health of my students via social media, siphoning off their time and attention spans so thoroughly that not even Ivy Leaguers today can read a complete book. Now they have come for the high-school classroom, where the surge in ubiquitous, no-apologies and guilt-free cheating has forced teachers like my friend and me to treat our students with potent suspicion in every academic interaction. Which begs the question: What new classroom innovations are we coming up with this summer? I'll admit, the homework quagmire continues to baffle us. But we have agreed, sadly, that exam days this fall will resemble contraband searches. We will require our students to leave backpacks at the back of the room. Pockets must be emptied. Phones and devices surrendered. We will provide paper and pencils like it's the 1950s, ensuring that at least some brain work will occur in our classrooms. Problem solved . . . right? Not so fast. I mentioned our new policy to an incoming senior who quickly warned me, 'You better watch for the Apple Watches — kids are using those, too.' For teachers in the trenches, this battle never ends. Never. Jeremy S. Adams is a high school teacher from Bakersfield, Calif. and author of the book 'Hollowed Out: A Warning About America's Next Generation.'
