While politicians and members of the public focus on the relative costs and benefits of new technological advances, those within the scientific community continue to worry about the impact of scepticism on British competitiveness in these markets.

One thorny issue is that of stem cell research, which sparks fierce debate between both voters and political leaders. While the European Commission has recommended that the EU fund work in this area, such countries as Germany, France and Spain who are opposed to the procedure threatened to block such a move. In contrast, Britain, Greece and Finland are among the member states that allow the "harvesting" of spare embryos from IVF treatment for research. Only recently, the European Parliament voted in favour of financing stem cell research for therapeutic reasons, but only in the countries where it is legally permitted.

The subject of nanotechnology is also a controversial one. Previously the new science, which involves the precise control of atoms and molecules, was the subject of debate between those closely involved in its development. But the Prince of Wales's highly publicised description of nanotechnology as "grey goo" has put it into the public arena.

In both of these cases, concerns have been raised that a failure to invest in researching these areas will leave Britain at a competitive disadvantage as other countries advance further and at a faster rate.

Questions have also been raised about the funding of research and its value for money. The Treasury allocates £4.5 billion a year towards research, predominantly through the Higher Education Funding Council ? which distributes the money to universities ? and to research councils that continually fund specific projects.

In a paper published in May, the Adam Smith Institute argued that much of the £500 million absorbed by the councils could be saved on administration and some "useless" research projects. "No one has shown how these institutes provide value for the taxpayer or, come to that, improve the quality of research," said author Tim Ambler. "They undoubtedly increase the quantity. Never mind improving these institutes, do we now need them at all?"

However any belief that a politician's endorsement will somehow allay public fears over new scientific advances have been quashed by such rows as the BSE crisis and the questions surrounding its transfer to humans in the CJD form, and the controversy surrounding the MMR vaccine. Despite ministers' reassurances and a series of reports denying any link between the injection and instances of autism in children, many parents are still concerned, and are voting with their feet. Take-up has fallen from a high of 90 per cent in the mid-1990s to 82 per cent this year, falling to as low as 60 per cent in some areas, while the market for single jabs continues to thrive.

The Office of Science and Technology, itself a subsidiary of the Department of Trade and Industry, aims to improve the performance of the government and the country in this area. This involves issuing advice to ministers, improving public engagement in science and enhancing the UK's position in the European Union and further a field. However two years ago, the prime minister's main advisory body on science, the Council for Science and Technology, urged the OST to "focus more sharply and clearly on its overarching role as the Science Budget holder" by improving research assessments. In response, Research Councils UK was created. But it has been criticised for having no independent authority, and for focusing more on its civil service role than its "scientific mission".

But difficulties in British medical research are not just associated with public and political wariness ? concerns have also been raised over a lack of interest among students in a scientific education. In 2002, UCAS figures show that only 2.8 per cent of applications were to medicine degree courses, compared to 12.1 per cent to business courses and 8.5 per cent for creative arts and design subjects.

The problem is not confined to the higher education sector. In July 2002, the Commons science and technology committee concluded that any interest a student might have had in science from their work at primary school level is damaged by study of the subject at GCSE due to it covering much of the material already studied at ages 11 to 14, and the lack of interesting topics covered.

Indeed, the MPs claimed that those who studied scientific subjects at A level did so "not because of science at GCSE but despite it". There is also a perception that studying the sciences post-16 demands more from a student than any other subject area that must be challenged, they argued.

In addition, the committee pointed to a lack of science technicians within certain schools, and called on ministers to examine their "appalling" pay and conditions and to create a career structure. This is not a problem found only within the education system ? Unison estimates that the starting salary for a medical technical officer in an NHS hospital stands at between £12,000 and £16,000, while the average graduate starting salary now stands at £20,300.

In Scotland, the union recently argued that an agreed 8.5 per cent pay increase for consultants would lead to low morale for nursing staff on lower wages.

It appears that the problem is twofold ? students have little interest in a subject that appears to require more work than others, while careers in the field of science appear to pay few dividends.

Chancellor Gordon Brown this year announced new tax credits for research and development to be made available to British businesses, which have been welcomed by the science community as a means of closing the productivity gap between the UK and its global rivals.

But some have argued that there are also issues surrounding the funding of projects, which hamper the British medical research "industry". The Save British Science Society has in the past criticised the funding structure in the UK, arguing that it rewards projects in certain areas, but leaves little cash for new discoveries. "I'm quite certain that all of these things would have caused the grant-giving bodies to turn down their applications if these great scientists applied for funding today," said chairman Dr Peter Cotgreave.

"How could Mendel have a relevant track record in genetics when the subject didn't even exist until he virtually invented it."