Last January, during a major policy address on science and technology, President Clinton proposed a new $500 million National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter, or roughly 70 times the diameter of a cold virus. Nanotechnology will allow us to manipulate matter at the atomic and molecular level, and to make materials and devices with new and useful properties.

As President Clinton noted in his speech, nanotechnology research could eventually lead to amazing breakthroughs, such as the ability to store the equivalent of the Library of Congress in a device the size of a sugar cube, or to develop materials that are 10 times stronger than steel and a fraction of the weight.

Although Congress did not provide full funding for the NNI, they did increase the federal funding for nanotechnology from $285 million to $446 million, a 56 percent increase. Many universities and research institutions are interested in expanding their efforts in this area. The University of Washington, for example, has created the first nanotechnology Ph.D. program in the country, and is teaming up with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to create a Joint Institute for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology.

Unfortunately, the budget the Bush administration has submitted to Congress will make it difficult to significantly expand the NNI. The Bush plan would cut the research budgets of the National Science Foundation, NASA and the Department of Energy, agencies that all play a key role in the NNI.

Allan Bromley, who was science adviser to former President George Bush, has called these proposed cuts a "self-defeating policy" that puts at risk all of George W. Bush's major policy goals. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has called the Bush administration's proposal to cut the NSF research budget "a tragic mistake."

Even within declining R&D budgets, some agencies are proposing to increase their expenditures on nanotechnology. And to their credit, the Bush administration is continuing to track how much the federal government is investing in this area. For a number of reasons, however, a failure to significantly expand U.S. government funding for nanotechnology would be a serious blow to America's future.

First of all, nanotechnology clearly has the potential to be a transformative technology, with an economic and social impact similar in scope and magnitude to electricity, the computer chip and the Internet. Nanotechnology could lead to dramatic improvements in computing, health care, manufacturing, materials, energy and the environment.

Scientists believe continued research in nanotechnology could lead to advances such as computers that are one million times more powerful than today's by creating transistors made from individual molecules. In the emerging field of nanomedicine, researchers are working to detect cancerous tumors when they are only a few cells in size, and cure diabetes with nanofactories that function as artificial kidneys.

Second, global leadership in this critical technology is up for grabs. As the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) recently concluded, "Nanotechnology is the first economically important revolution in science and technology (S&T) since World War II that the United States has not entered with a commanding lead." Europe and Japan are already ramping up their investments in this area.

Third, investment in nanotechnology will help build the technical work force of the future. Inevitably, some of the University of Washington professors and graduate students who are involved in nanotech research projects will start their own company or join an existing firm.

Finally, nanotechnology is a classic example of a long-term, high-risk investment where government support is important. Researchers believe that many advances in nanotechnology will require a sustained investment over a 10- to 20-year period. This is a very difficult kind of research for companies to support. Obviously, more than a one-year infusion of additional funds will be required to expand the nanotechnology research community.

There is no reason that the NNI has to be a partisan issue. It has strong support from industry, science and engineering societies, Democratic senators such as Barbara Mikulski and Evan Bayh, and leading Republicans such as Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. At a minimum, the Bush administration and Congress should work together to double federal spending on nanotechnology research over the next five years. America's economic and technology leadership in the 21st century will depend on these kinds of farsighted investments.