Actually, I said that Drexler could NOT be credited with the terminology.

I credit Drexler with one patent, one refereed publication, a Ph.D. in Media Arts and Sciences through the MIT Media Lab with a linguist (Minsky) as first reader, and a penchant for generating publicity.

If you are going to attack my motives then at least answer me with your real name.

I am attempting to not let you denigrate Drexler's more that 25 years dedication and contribution to the field. You seemed to say (if that other "anonymous coward" was really you) that besides from the terminology there was nothing left to credit Drexler with. So I ask you, in your opinion, who are the pillars of the field? What if anything do you credit Drexler with and why?

This thread began with an excerpt from a paper by Eric which mentioned "an author in Japan in the early 1970s" while failing to credit him (Taniguchi) by name (and at the same time mis-characterizing his work), but which freely gave credit to Feynman.

Obviously you see no problem with this, and you are attempting to change the subject, in part supporting Eric by claiming that he was once upon a time ignorant of the literature (Feynman's talk).

What a unique perspective you have! With friends like you . . .

I not very concerned about the history of the origin of the word "nanotechnology".

Feynman gave a visionary table talk at a physics convention and went no further. As I understand it, Drexler invented molecular manufacturing independently without being aware of Feynman's talk. Feynman was merely suggesting a new direction for investigation. Drexler fleshed out the theory of this new path in many ways. Nanosystems was derived from his Ph.D. thesis at M.I.T. Plus he popularized the field essentially by himself. Remember when Drexler started talking about nanotechnology most physicists and chemists said that it would be impossible to work at that level. Now they do it every day in new ways. So the biggest barrier was to strip away misconceptions such as exactly when, from an engineering perspective, does the Uncertainty Principle interfere? People would just wave their hands and say "Oh, but the Uncertainty Principle says I cannot move around a single atom!" Drexler would show them the calculation and they would have to agree that they indeed could work with an individual atom under certain conditions. I see Drexler's biggest contribution as causing an intellectual revolution of sorts regarding what we can ultimately do with technology.

Are you serious? Do you seriously mean to defend Eric by suggesting that he was ignorant of the literature? And that after that ignorance was revealed to him he had no obligation to set the record straight? Fascinating!

Constant fawning? Do you mean to say that Eric has, at some time in the past, publicy credited Taniguchi by name, and so now has no ongoing obligation to do so? Or are you trying to gloss over the fact that Eric has never, not once, publicly admitted that a guy named Taniguchi was the first to use the term to describe atomically precise manufacturing?

Has anyone, anywhere, ever claimed that Taniguchi invented Molecular Manufacturing? I think not. Credit for that concept goes to Feynman, and credit for that vocabulary goes to Eric. By all means let's not have any constant fawning over Eric for inventing that vocabulary. But if we don't fawn over him for that, what's left?

Dear AC, let me quote from Eric's article:

"Confusion between these meanings — and the natural urge of numerous researchers to dissociate their current work from promises and dangers that they neither understand nor plan to deliver — has generated much heat."

That identifies the malaise very well. If it's the word "malaise" that you don't like, replace it with another of your choice. Whatever one calls it, we've all seen it rear its head repeatedly over the last several years. We've all witnessed high-profile researchers distancing themselves and their long-established research groups from nanotechnology memes, despite their work impacting strongly on nanoscale issues and being directly applicable to nanotechnology in its wider sense. Eric identifies the problem very accurately.

The "zetta" proposal seeks to divide up the design space a little to help scientists work separately while still cooperating towards a larger composite goal — it lets them "dissociate their current work" from those aspects of nanotechnology with which they are not yet comfortable, on the rather arbitrary basis of component count. I understand the social reasoning there, even if it is a rather feeble engineering solution to the problem.

Clever people aren't always objective and logical, and even when they are, sometimes other agendas intrude and make them seem less so. We've felt the effect in the past, and it's not been helpful. Classifying research areas is a good strategy for aiding cooperation between those who seem to need boundaries and those who see the wider context.

Nanomanufacturing – for building macro-scale products using nano-scale techniques

Active nanotechnology – anything involving assembler-like activity

Nanomaterials – what much of nanotechnology is today – carbon nanotubes, zinc oxide, self-cleaning windows, etc.

Had Eric heard the of term before using it? Crediting Feynman because he had heard what Feynman said, and not crediting Taniguchi because he hadn't ever heard what he said, would be a perfectly good explanation for me.

As for Taniguchi's usage, it seems much more limited than what Drexler means by it. Taniguchi seems to be referring only to fabrication techniques at the nano scale.

Then I suggest you take your complaint up with Eric himself. I don't think anyone was wronged of dishonored in any way. The word "nanotechnology" is an obvious extension to "microtechnology" which was in common use at the time and should be open for use by anyone without constant fawning over whoever may have used it first. Especially of the intended meanings are quite different. Besides, Drexler mainly speaks with his own terms such as Molecular Manufacturing and now apparently "Zettatechnology". It is true I have not read the paper but I have read enough quotes of it to know the context. Taniguchi was not inventing Molecular Manufacturing.