We have spent more than a decade debating Britain's approach to GM and are little further forward. With no clear answers in sight, a new challenge is now emerging that shares many of the same characteristics. Nanotechnology, the science of the very small, offers great benefits as well as risks yet the government has failed to carve out a clear strategy for the UK's involvement.

The ability to manipulate matter at the molecular level potentially has implications across the spectrum of science and technology - this is where nanotechnology parts company from GM. Furthermore the science of the very small is already at work making sunscreens that block greater amounts of ultra-violet radiation and building computer circuitry that are miniaturized to the nano scale. But some of the greatest applications of nanotechnology are in medicine.

By thinking small, drug delivery has been taken to new degrees of accuracy. Lipid spheres of about 100 nanometers in diameter have been used to encapsulate anti-cancer drugs for the treatment of Aids-related Kaposi's sarcoma. Such targeted drug delivery systems reduce the amount and frequency of doses of medication required. Scientists have developed molecules that can self-assemble into the three-dimensional structures that mimic the key features of human bone at the nanoscale level, including collagen nanofibers that promote mineralisation and mineral nanocrystals. Such techniques should lead to the construction of more effective and longer-lasting medical implants. Chemicals and diseases can be detected using nanosize semiconductor crystals that change to florescent colours when they come into contact with molecules associated with disease. With the ability to build processors and tools smaller than a human cell, it is conceivable that surgical instruments could be developed that could repair individual cells in the human body.

Nanotechnology is projected to be a $62.5 billion global industry by 2005, yet the British government has stalled in its efforts to promote and regulate it. In July, this became very apparent during an adjournment debate on nanotechnology that I led. I put it to the minister, Nigel Griffiths MP, that it had dawned on his government later than most that nanotech might potentially revolutionise manufacturing and commerce. The US, Japan, Germany and even France are forging ahead and far outstripping the UK government in the tangible support given to nanotechnology.

Last June, the Office of Science and Technology published the findings of a study headed by Dr John Taylor, Director General of the Research Councils of the UK. The lengthy report, New Dimensions for Manufacturing - A UK Strategy for Nanotechnology, outlined a roadmap of actions needed for the UK to effectively compete with other nations in developing nanotechnology. I reminded the minister that this roadmap had called for an immediate and detailed strategy for developing nanotechnology in the UK. The Taylor report specifically insisted that the UK build at least two national nanotechnology fabrication centres to facilitate the growth of nanotechnology and to have all plans and funding prepared for the centres by the end of last year. I asked the minister if he could say where we were with Taylor's Nanotechnology Applications Strategy Board and with our fabrication centres. The minister, who had arrived late for the debate and finished his remarks early, did not.

Roadmaps are very much in vogue but the minister made no mention of where the UK was on Taylor's nanotechnology roadmap. Instead it seems that the government's response to the Taylor report has been to initiate yet another study, this time run jointly by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. Griffiths claims that the government's investment compares very favourably with the level of investment by major competitor nations. It does not. The governments of Japan and the United States already spend more than £450 million and £500 million a year respectively on nanotechnology - Britain proposes £90 million over six years.

The government's current attitude gives no comfort to those concerned that the UK has no direction or strategy for the development of nanotechnology. I fear that nanotechnology is rapidly becoming the latest in a string of opportunities gripped and exploited by others with the UK doing the basic science then sitting back to watch and wait.

Dr Andrew Murrison is theConservative MP for Westburyand a Member of the Science and Technology Select Committee. Peter Milligan is his Hansard Intern.